Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Onshore Licences

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he can yet report on the review of arrangements for granting onshore licences.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): My right hon. Friend expects to be able to make an announcement early in the new year.

Mr. Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this year a record number of onshore licences will be granted —about 63 in all—and that that high level of awards is likely to continue next year? Therefore, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is sufficient liaison between his Department and the Department of the Environment to ensure that the environment is fully protected? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that it is not so much the drilling as such that causes the public concern, but the mess created in gaining access to sites, and that, if wells prove to be dry, adequate safeguards must be provided to ensure that those sites are restored when drilling is complete?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware that there is considerable activity at present. It is worth while for us to

know what reserves we have on shore. I am fully aware of the justifiable sensitivity to the issue in certain areas, but I assure my hon. Friend that those matters are, of course, subject to local planning controls. Therefore, the simple issue of a licence does not automatically mean that drilling takes place.

Mr. Adley: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me that about 35 per cent. of the area in onshore licence section PL 259 is in my constituency, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure all my constituents and anybody else's that their rights are protected and that no one can enter their property and start drilling without full permission?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am happy to give that assurance. Any drilling must have the permission of the landowner concerned and local planning consent.

Coal Industry

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on policy concerning the future of the coal industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): Our aims for the industry are reflected in the objectives set for the board, which were published: in the Official Report of the first sitting of the Standing Committee on the Coal Industry Bill, 22 November, c. 38.

Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister agree that the boiler conversion scheme can play a significant part in increasing the demand for coal? Have there not been many more applications for aid recently under the scheme? Has not the National Coal Board called upon the Government to continue and improve the scheme? In those circumstances, if the scheme is not continued and improved, would that not be a deliberate act of sabotage of the coal industry? Will the hon. Gentleman consult his hon. Friends in the Department of Industry on the scheme as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the matter is largely the subject of another question on the


Order Paper, but I agree that it is an important factor to be considered in relation to the development of the NCB. The matter is being urgently considered at the moment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Have the Government noted the recent remarks of the chairman of the NCB on the potentialities for a large increase of coal sales in Northern Ireland? Will that matter be vigorously followed up?

Mr. Shaw: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman on both counts. We have noted the remarks of the chairman of the NCB. I have discussed the matter with him. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall do what we can to see that that market is supplied.

Mr. Hardy: While in the next two or three years the coal industry may continue to face problems, largely because of the Government's policies, does the Minister agree that beyond that time the country is likely to have an increasing requirement for coal? Will he therefore ensure that the industry is allowed to survive the short-term difficulties so that it can meet long-term needs?

Mr. Shaw: Hon. Members on both sides of the House must accept that the objective of the Government's policy and of the NCB is to ensure that the industry has a longterm viable prospect. It is to that end that we are committed to the present policy.

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman said that boiler conversion was an urgent matter. We have asked him about this many times. The Government do not appear to be acting very quickly on it. Are there any hitches or problems, or is the Chancellor of the Exchequer once again the obstacle to this excellent scheme?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman knows that the scheme is not under the direct responsibility of my Department. He will recognise that it is for us to persuade our colleagues. I trust that an announcement will be made shortly.

Onshore Licences

Mr. Hayward: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if there has been an increase since 1979 in onshore appraisal well drilling.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There were no appraisal wells drilled onshore during 1979 and 1980, but during 1981, 1982, and the first 11 months of 1983, one, four and six wells have been drilled respectively.

Mr. Hayward: To what extent does onshore drilling give opportunities to smaller oil companies as against the larger established companies, which undertake much of the drilling in the North sea?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is correct to assume that the cost of drilling onshore is very much less than that of drilling offshore. There is no doubt that the opportunity to carry out these activities onshore is a good way of getting some of the smaller British companies into the industry.

British Gas Corporation

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the financial and service targets set for the British Gas Corporation for the next four years.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I have agreed with the British Gas Corporation

a financial target and a performance objective for the period 1983–84 to 1986–87. The financial target will require the corporation to earn an average current cost operating profit, before taxation and interest, of 4 per cent. on average net assets at current cost. The performance objective is a 12 per cent. real reduction, by 1986–87 against 1982–83, in unit net trading costs per therm of gas sold and used at seasonal normal temperatures.

Mr. Eggar: I thank my right hon. Friend for that first announcement of the detailed proposals on the targets. Whatever the future structure and ownership of the British Gas Corporation, it is essential for its good running that it has clear targets. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the targets will not be changed during the next three years?

Mr. Walker: Yes. In fairness to the British Gas Corporation, it also wanted the right, should anything extraordinary happen, to revise the targets. This is not just a one-way position. I agree completely with my hon. Friend that the only way sensibly to control the nationalised industries is to set them financial targets and give them every opportunity of meeting them.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Secretary of State expect a ceasefire in the war between himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who does he expect to be the victor?

Mr. Walker: I expect not a ceasefire, but happy, contented and cheerful dialogues.

Mr. Orme: When will the Secretary of State stop using the gas industry as a means of imposing a fuel tax on the consumer, especially when it is unnecessary to do so?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman's remark is quite extraordinary. A previous occasion on which the financial targets of the gas industry were mentioned was on 22 December 1978—seven days after Parliament had gone into recess. The then Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Tony Benn, announced that, in accordance with the White Paper on nationalised industries, he had set financial targets for the electricity and gas industries. British Gas would have to earn 6·5 per cent. on turnover after interest, and the electricity supply industry 10 per cent. on average net assets. Did the hon. Gentleman object to that tax?

Electricity Supplies

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to change the arrangements for companies taking advantage of the provision under the Energy Act 1983, whereby they can use the Central Electricity Generating Board's grid system for transmitting electricity to customers.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I have no plans to change the arrangements set out in the Energy Act 1983. The electricity boards' tariffs for the use of their systems, which were published on 1 October, will be reviewed next spring.

Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the large users of electricity receive more favourable terms from the electricity boards? Will he also consider the problem of the two or three large industries using continuous processes which are still facing great problems because of the electricity tariff? Will my hon. Friend reexamine and revise the tariff system?

Mr. Shaw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Helpful arrangements have been made in many instances and tariff structures have improved. However, there are exceptions. My hon. Friend will be aware that the boards are happy to enter into special discussions with significant customers so that special agreements might be made.

Mr. Eadie: In addition to that reply, I hope that the Minister will give the same assurance to the House as was given when we debated the Energy Bill, which is that the electricity boards and consumers will not be asked to provide a subsidy to industries which generate their own electricity, and that if they want to use the electricity grid it must be on the basis of the prices usually charged?

Mr. Shaw: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Those are the circumstances in which boards will be discussing supplies of electricity with major customers.

Energy Prices

Mr. Orme: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received on electricity prices.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest representation he has received relating to increases in fuel prices in the new year.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have received a number of representations concerning gas and electricity prices.

Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State now inform the House about the electricity price increase? Is he not aware that the Electricity Council does not want an increase? Does not industry need the proposed increase like a hole in the head? Consumers certainly do not want an increase.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we know that he is wholly opposed to any increase? Is there not a major division in the Cabinet, with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer carrying the day? Do they not want an increase to pay for cuts in taxation at the expense of the least well off in our society? The Secretary of State should resign.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's invitation. Both gas and electricity price increases are decided and announced at the appropriate time by the industries themselves. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have no power to increase prices.
The gas industry will be announcing its price increase shortly. It will be a decision wholly for the gas industry, without pressure of any description by the Government. On industrial electricity price increases, it is unlikely that there will be an increase for a long time other than the normal adjustment clauses.
The Cabinet has asked the Electricity Council to reconsider its proposals on domestic electricity prices for the next two years. We are talking about the possibility of a 2 per cent. increase next year, which would mean an increase of 2 per cent. over two years. Yet under the Labour Government there was a 2 per cent. increase not every two years but every six weeks. The right hon. Gentleman, who was at that time responsible for those on low incomes, should therefore have resigned every six weeks.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for short supplementary questions and answers.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that his rhetoric does not disguise the fact that he was beaten and humiliated in Cabinet by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about an electricity price increase? If the Electricity Council refuses to increase prices—it has stated clearly that there is no justification for such an increase—what power or persuasion will the right hon. Gentleman use to force it to take action which it does not wish to take?

Mr. Walker: There is no question of a power. We are having a perfectly reasonable dialogue with the Electricity Council. We are asking it to consider its price increases for the next two years, and are making suggestions. This morning I met the chairman of the Electricity Council and he agreed to consider the views expressed by the Cabinet. We have a good and sensible relationship.
I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should condemn the possibility of domestic electricity prices rising by 2 per cent. over two years when the Labour Government put up prices by 170 per cent.

Mr. Hordern: As the advisers appointed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Coopers and Lybrand — have reported that, if anything, electricity prices should be reduced by 7 per cent., and as the Electricity Council apparently sees no need for any further increases in electricity prices, should not the Electricity Council, which knows about these matters, set the prices which it believes to be appropriate?

Mr. Walker: The Electricity Council will set the prices, but it is reasonable for Governments to have a dialogue with the major nationalised industries and to make suggestions about the manner in which future prices are managed. That dialogue is going on.
The press quotation to which my hon. Friend referred mentioned one part of the Coopers and Lybrand report, dealing with the effect of the decision to write off capital assets. The advisers did not come to an overall view that electricity prices should be reduced by 7 per cent. As my hon. Friend said, ultimately that is a matter for the Electricity Council to decide.

Mr. Wallace: As the amicable dialogue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still continuing, I and my Liberal and Social Democratic right hon. and hon. Friends wish the Secretary of State well in winning that dialogue. If, at the end of the discussions, the Electricity Council is directed to increase fuel prices against its better judgment, how will that square with the Government's policy of nonintervention in the industry?

Mr. Walker: I repeat that the statutory power for fixing electricity prices lies with the council, but it has always been customary, under all Governments, for the council to have a genuine discussion and to bear in mind the Government's view on the economic position. A great deal of the calculation of prices in the electricity industry is based upon Treasury forecasts about the trends An the economy. It is right that the dialogue should have taken place. Most of the hon. Gentleman's Social Democratic Friends were supporters or members of a Government who increased electricity prices by 170 per cent.

Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend has my sympathy on the problem of electricity prices. Is he aware that, in my experience, the Treasury has always had a rather poor grasp of energy industry issues and energy


prices? Does he accept that if he approves a price increase it should be on the basis of the energy market, proper energy policy and energy balance rather than on the shortsighted views pressed on him by the Treasury?

Mr. Walker: It is important that the Government's financial targets should be met. It is important for the nationalised industries, like everyone else, to take account of general economic requirements, and I am sure that the electricity industry will do so. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is important that if we are to have good management of those industries we should try to set financial targets that are acceptable to them such as those that we have just set for the gas industry.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Since 1979 the RPI has risen by 57·2 per cent. Why have the Government sanctioned gas price increases of 112 per cent., electricity price increases of 82·5 per cent. and coal price increases of 82·2 per cent.? Should not they give a lead by using public utilities as a vanguard?

Mr. Walker: That is why I am sure the hon. Gentleman is delighted that during the past two years electricity prices have decreased in real terms.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at this time of the year he has the complete good will of every member of the Cabinet? If the electricity industry increases prices and makes a large profit above the level required, will he try to persuade the Cabinet that we should all receive a rebate, as we all own the electricity supply industry?

Mr. Walker: I want to contribute to Christmas good cheer by saying that there is no possibility of any electricity price increases until the end of this winter. If there are any increases they will be below half the very low current rate of inflation. It would be correct to achieve sensible financial targets rather than be involved in the complexity of rebates.

Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State tell the House the arguments that he used against the increases that were arrived at when he was away in China? We are told that on his return he was very angry. At the weekend he made a statement, and the House, too, is entitled to a statement.

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has the time scale completely wrong. The proposals put forward in the Cabinet while I was in China about our approach to the Electricity Council had been agreed with me a week previously. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am never angry. I am also glad to say that, whatever the results of any views that I have expressed, the increases will be way below the rate of inflation.

European Community Energy Policy

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with progress towards the development of a European Community energy policy.

Mr. Peter Walker: The European Commission has recently reviewed the Community's energy strategy and identified areas for action.

Mr. Knox: What consideration has the Community given to the introduction of a tax on imported oil? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would be helpful and advantageous to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. Although it might be argued that the imposition of an energy tax throughout the Community would be advantageous to the United Kingdom, when the matter was discussed members of the Community agreed unanimously that it was not the right course to pursue.

Mr. Rogers: In the development of a European energy policy, will the Secretary of State throw his weight behind Government proposals to increase subsidies to the British coal industry to the level operated by our European competitors?

Mr. Walker: The massive investment of more than £2 million per day that we are putting into our coal industry dwarfs anything being done by any other European country.

Energy Prices

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss energy costs.

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he will next meet the chairman of the Electricity Council.

Mr. Haynes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Electricity Council; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Electricity Council and of the Central Electricity Generating Board which cover a range of subjects.

Mr. Eastham: In thanking the Minister for his reply, may I make a special plea that when he next meets the CEGB chairman he will make special reference to the power engineering industry, and especially Trafford park? Will he recommend a refurbishment programme to allow our industry to continue, otherwise it will collapse and we shall have to buy all our heavy engineering equipment abroad?

Mr. Walker: I shall certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's views to the chairman of the CEGB. I will contact the hon. Gentleman when I have done so.

Mr. Rowlands: Having met the chairman of the Electricity Council this morning, will the Secretary of State confirm that if the chairman decides that he does not wish to increase prices the right hon. Gentleman will state that clearly to the Government? Will he further confirm that the Government do not intend to propose any emergency legislation to allow them to compel the Electricity Council to increase prices?

Mr. Walker: I confirm that we do not have in mind any emergency legislation to compel any nationalised board to increase prices. The chairman of the Electricity Council said that he would consider carefully the points made this morning and will give me his views in January.

Mr. Rost: If the electricity industry believes that it can, through internal cost cutting, meet the higher financial targets set for it by the Treasury, why is its arm being twisted to increase prices at all?

Mr. Walker: In fairness, the industry did not firmly state that it could reach the targets. It said that it would


endeavour to do so. Moreover, it is perfectly reasonable that the Government should look at a two-year span to see whether any price increases are needed so as to ensure that they take place slowly and steadily and not in a violent jump. Those views have been put to the Electricity Council and will undoubtedly be considered by it.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: As the cost of coal is a major element in the cost of electricity, is it not logical that those who press for reductions or control of electricity prices should examine the position of uneconomic collieries?

Mr. Walker: The cost of coal is a major component in the cost of our electricity. That is why I am pleased that the electricity industry now has the benefit of a better coal contract for the coming period than it had previously. I hope that that trend will continue.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Secretary of State tell the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board that he must present a few facts with regard to electricity as the Secretary of State lost the case on gas while he was in China? Will the Secretary of State tell the chairman that he will resign, or will he go back to China?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should stop making wholly incorrect remarks. The chairman of the gas corporation will make it clear that any announcement to increase gas prices will be entirely the decision of the corporation. He would take offence at the suggestion that what he announced was not his own decision. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Perhaps he should withdraw what he said.

Mr. Hoyle: On the contrary, I shall merely reinforce it.

Mr. Yeo: In view of the tremendous fuss that appears to have been generated over electricity prices, will my right hon. Friend confirm clearly that, whatever the outcome of the discussions, any increase in the price of electricity will be substantially below the current rate of inflation and substantially below the types of increases to which we were accustomed under the Labour Government? In view of the importance of fuel prices to elderly people, will he also point out that any such increase in price will be below the latest increase in pensions?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Labour Government increased electricity prices every six weeks at the rate at which we might increase them every two years. Moreover, the shadow spokesman on energy matters will be specially interested to know, in view of his past involvement with social security problems, that with the latest 8 per cent. increase in benefits for heating for lower income groups, we shall have improved such benefits by no less than 140 per cent. since we came to power.

Oil Industry

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the state of the oil industry in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is an encouraging level of activity offshore. Downstream, considerable reorganisation has taken place in recent years and this should strengthen the industry.

Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend worried about recent job losses in the oil refining industry? Does he have

any views about possible fluctuations in the world price of oil which will further reduce job opportunities in the British oil refining industry?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am fully aware that there has recently been considerable reorganisation in our industry. That reorganisation is in the interests of the industry's long-term strength. Our industry is now extremely competitive with industries throughout the world. Our capacity is much more in line with demand. It is in Britain's and other countries' interests that we work towards stable oil prices.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the current political instability of the near and middle east ensures that any forecast of world oil prices is highly speculative and that therefore the only secure policy is for the Government to support indigenous oil supplies and other forms of energy?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that I do not attempt to make such forecasts. I appreciate the problems that can arise. Compared with many other countries, Britain is fortunate to have an extremely strong and active indigenous oil industry.

Mr. Rowlands: Has the Department of Energy made any assessment of what the pound falling 10 cents against the dollar will mean in terms of potential petrol price increases? Is there not a possibility in the new year of there being substantial price increases on the forecourt?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not think that we could in any way examine prices quite as simply as the hon. Gentleman tries to do.

Coal Use

Mr. Barron: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to promote the use of British coal within British industry.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The coal firing schemes, providing up to 25 per cent. capital grants and exchange risks cover on ECSC loans, have given the NCB constructive and practical help in its efforts to increase coal's penetration of the industrial sector. The present scheme is expected to generate an extra 2 million tonnes per annum in coal burn.

Mr. Barron: Does the Minister agree with Opposition Members that the expiry of the oil conversion scheme at the end of this month and the fact that there has not yet been a statement from the Secretary of State does not augur well for conversion from other fuels to coal in British industry? When can we expect a statement to the effect that the Government will renew the scheme and look into other areas for investment so that we can switch from oil and gas to coal burning while we have massive stocks of coal for which the country has paid but which we seem unable to use?

Mr. Shaw: I accept the hon. Gentleman's view that we must and should seek an extension to the scheme. I assure the House that discussions are taking place, although we have not as yet been able to reach an agreement.

Mr. Eggar: Is not the best way to make sure that there is more use of coal by industry to ensure that plenty of coal is available on a regular basis and at competitive prices? The miners' overtime ban does not help in this regard, nor does the NCB's refusal, with the assistance of the National Union of Mineworkers, to close down uneconomic pits.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. The long-term future of the industry will depend entirely on its ability to produce coal at prices that the market can sustain.

Mr. Boyes: Is there not a contradiction between promoting coal and closing a pit at Herrington in my constituency? Should not talks take place with the chairman of the NCB about the change of policy regarding people under 50, who have in general been transferred to other pits when their own pits have closed, but for whom in this case the NCB has said that this will not happen? Will the Minister investigate this matter?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point. I refer him to the recent debate on the Coal Industry Bill, in which reference was made to the conditions under which that colliery was closed.

Mr. Rost: Is my hon. Friend aware that industry would use more coal if it were offered at a more competitive price, and in particular if industry had more choice of purchasing rather than being able to purchase almost only from the monopoly?

Mr. Shaw: I understand my hon. Friend's view, but the fact remains that the bulk of British industry is prepared to buy coal if it fits neatly into the economic arguments for such fuel.

Mr. Orme: I wish to press the Minister further about the boiler conversion unit and an early statement from the Government. What is holding up the making of a statement? What is the difficulty with the Department of Trade and Industry? The date of 31 December is very close, and the Minister should make a statement before the House rises for the Christmas recess.

Mr. Shaw: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman pressing me on this matter. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take note of what he said.

Alternative Energy Sources

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the proportions of total Government grants for research into alternative sources of energy allocated to solar, wave and wind and geothermal projects.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I gave detailed figures for my Department's expenditure on new and renewable sources of energy in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 3 November 1983. The proportions of this expenditure allocated to solar, wave, wind and geothermal projects in 1982–83 were 10 per cent., 22 per cent., 18 per cent. and 32 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. I appreciate that Government grants should be allocated according to the merits and prospects of individual projects, but will my right hon. Friend comment on Government grants to wind power, particularly in view of the recent article in the magazine Nature, entitled "Wind Blows Cool"?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware of that article, but, as the wind blows in my Department, we have over £6 million committed to the windmill project in Orkney and are awaiting the design and revised development cost plan. Those have not yet been received. When we receive them, we shall consider the up-to-date position.

Coal Industry

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss new investment in the industry.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I meet the chairman regularly and have discussion with him on all aspects of the industry.

Mr. Powell: Earlier today the Secretary of State said that he wanted an increase of Christmas cheer. Will he now make an urgent call to the chairman of the NCB and ask him to give some Christmas cheer to the 550 miners in Ogmore who are manning the only pit, which is now to be closed? Will he do some further research into investment in the coal industry in Wales in general and save a number of pits which are threatened with closure?

Mr. Shaw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's reason for raising this matter, but he will know that the NCB is responsible for making such decisions through agreed procedures, which include local consultation and representations. I shall draw the attention of the chairman of the NCB to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss coal production levels.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I meet the chairman regularly and discuss with him all aspects of the industry.

Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Minister fix a firm date for a meeting of the chairman of the National Coal Board with the Government and the three mining unions, based on the tripartite arrangements? Will he confirm his support for "Plan for Coal", based on a judgment of the long-term future of the need for coal in this country, not on short-term market fluctuations?

Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that, should the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers jointly agree on an agenda for discussion with him, he will be happy to take part in such a discussion. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there was a meeting between the National Coal Board, the National Union of Mineworkers and the other important unions in the industry, from which it would appear that some of the unions, at any rate, did not agree with what the NUM said.

Foundry Coke Subsidy

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has reviewed the possibility of continuing the foundry coke subsidy.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The foundry coke subsidy is due to end on 31 December.

Mr. Miller: Is my hon. Friend aware of the anxiety in the foundry industry about its competitive position, particularly against foreign competitors with their lower coke prices, in view of the ending of this subsidy? Can he help with a fairly early resolution of the difficulties?

Mr. Shaw: I am well aware of the anxiety in the foundry industry which believes that if the subsidy is removed prices will rise by about £22 a tonne on 1 January. The foundry coke producers have not announced their new


prices, but they will do so shortly. I do not believe that this will involve price rises on anything like the scale feared by the foundry industry.

Mr. Rowlands: If those fears do begin to materialise, what will the Government and the Minister do?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that very long notice was given of the withdrawal of this subsidy. Indeed, some of the producers have already taken major steps because of the warning that it would be reduced. We are still considering the representations of the industry.

Energy Prices

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss electricity price increases.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board which cover a range of subjects.

Mr. Rost: Reverting to previous questions on energy price increases, will my hon. Friend confirm that to force the electricity industry to increase prices if it can meet the higher demands of the Treasury on its financial targets without doing so must be a major disincentive?

Mr. Shaw: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view, but that matter has already been fully and fairly dealt with by my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Accommodation

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will initiate the establishment of a Select Committee on Houses of Parliament Accommodation.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will review all accommodation within those parts of the Palace of Westminster allocated to the House of Commons to see how much can be made available to hon. Members.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Following the debate on 22 November, the Services Committee has appointed a New Building Sub-Committee. It will be part of its orders of reference to consider the future use of accommodation in the palace.

Mr. Hamilton: I appreciate that, but will the Leader of the House take the trouble to re-read the Stokes report, produced as long ago as 1953, which compared the amount of accommodation used in this building by the House of Commons with that used by the House of Lords? Does not the other place occupy about a third of the total accommodation that is available in the building, and is that not out of proportion to its work load and active membership? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there are more than 20 private residences in the building, and that the Lord Chancellor's Department is still here, having increased its rooms from 23 in 1946 to 36 in 1953? How many rooms does the Lord Chancellor's Department occupy now? Will he give the Lord Chancellor's Department notice of eviction?

Mr. Biffen: I shall, of course, acquaint myself with the Stokes report. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that under an arrangement dating from 1965 the area of the House of Commons is the responsibility of Mr. Speaker on behalf of the House, and control of the accommodation occupied by the House of Lords is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Hamilton: That is the trouble.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Leader of the House say whether the Sub-Committee, to which he referred, is looking at all the accommodation in the Palace of Westminster or only at that which comes within the scope of the House of Commons? If the latter, on what basis could we challenge the allocation of space between the two Houses?

Mr. Biffen: The Accommodation Administration Committee and the Sub-Committee to which 1 referred have responsibilities regarding accommodation within the House of Commons, and that derives from the 1965 arrangements. I cannot immediately tell the hon. Gentleman how the 1965 arrangements may be challenged, but I am certain that opportunities within Parliament allow for them to be debated.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine why hon. Members should want any more accommodation?

Mr. Biffen: The appetite comes with eating.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in a democracy we need two Chambers, and that if we want to hear decent voices from the Opposition we are more likely to hear them in the other place?

Mr. Biffen: Tempted as I am to elaborate on that observation, I think that it falls a little wide of the original question.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the present proposals to improve accommodation are progressing satisfactorily?

Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman is referring lo the development of the first phase, yes, that is my understanding.

Mr. Tim Smith: May we know the extent of the problem? How many rooms are currently available for the 650 Members of the House of Commons?

Mr. Biffen: Every hon. Member has a desk space.

Ex-Members of Parliament

Mr. Greenway: asked the Lord Privy Seal what arrangements are made for ex-Members of Parliament to witness House of Commons proceedings when they wish to do so.

Mr. Biffen: There is no provision for ex-Members of Parliament to witness proceedings of the House of Commons other than by obtaining an admission order, either through a Member of Parliament or from the Admission Order Office.

Mr. Greenway: Is it not hard on ex-Members of Parliament who wish to witness our proceedings that they have to queue or resort to various other means to get into the precincts of the House? Should they not have the same rights as peers of the realm to sit in the Special Galleries?

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that this is particularly hard on ex-Members. Every time there is advocacy, however persuasive, to increase the privileges of others to enjoy access to the House, bit by bit the facilities available for hon. Members are diminished. I take that as a general proposition. Therefore, I do not feel particularly generous towards the idea of extending facilities in the manner that my hon. Friend suggests.

Government Information Policy

Mr. Winnick: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the co-ordination of Government information policy.

Mr. Biffen: The Prime Minister has asked my right hon. Friend the Viscount Whitelaw to take responsibility for co-ordinating the presentation of Government policy in addition to his duties as Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Winnick: Since the Government's popularity is fast disappearing down the plug hole, why should the Prime Minister believe that Lord Whitelaw can do any better than the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Biffen: If there has been a temporary dip in the Government's popularity, I can think of no more formidable person to reverse that than my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Whitelaw.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government's information policy problems are more the Government's secrecy problems? Will Lord Whitelaw be involved in them as well?

Mr. Biffen: I thought that there was a widespread belief that there were no secrets left in this Government.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend feel deprived?

Mr. Biffen: No.

Mr. Dalyell: On the question of secrets, what do the Government propose to do about the allegations in The Observer that it has received documents relating to the Secretary of State for Defence circulating his colleagues? Is he aware that some of us think that the freedom of the press is more important than any alleged leaks?

Mr. Biffen: As to secrets, the House should know that many years ago I sponsored the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to be chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association. The substantive part of the hon. Gentleman's question falls wide of the question tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Shore: As we all know that nothing is more important than the co-ordination of Government policy, and as we now know that responsibility for that has been transferred to Lord Whitelaw in the House of Lords, who in the House of Commons is the responsible Minister to whom we can put questions and bring to account for any failure in the Government's co-ordination of policies?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed from today's Order Paper that I answer on behalf of the Lord President of the Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Retirement

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the current annual percentage of civil servants who retire from the service voluntarily prior to reaching the normal retirement age.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Special voluntary early retirement schemes, applying to staff aged 55 and over, are introduced from time to time to help reduce manpower numbers and improve overall efficiency. Some 1,350 or 0·3 per cent. of non-industrial staff retired under such a scheme earlier this year.

Mr. Chapman: I recognise that the percentage of those seeking voluntary retirement or retirement at the normal age is quite high— it was about 11·8 per cent. four years ago and must still be a high proportion—but will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the further planned reductions in the Civil Service, whether among industrial or non-industrial civil servants, should be achievable with few, if any, forced redundanies?

Mr. Hayhoe: I hope that it will be possible to achieve the reductions that have been announced without recourse to enforced redundancies, but I cannot give an absolute assurance to that effect.

Mr. Eastham: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that a senior civil servant in the north west, who has been waiting several months for early retirement because he believes he has a conflict of interests, is receiving his full salary of about £20,000 a year? Does the Minister agree that is a disgrace and that the House is entitled to a statement about the case?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am not aware of this particular case. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should raise it first with the Minister responsible.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister sympathetic to the point that, prior to retirement, members of the Civil Service should be able to take full-time or part-time secondment to the schemes that are available, such as the cross-over scheme and the action resource centre scheme, which are particularly suitable for people coming up to retirement who may wish to ease themselves into voluntary work?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am prepared to consider any suggestions to that end, but one must be careful not to increase the burden on public expenditure.

Dr. McDonald: Is it part of the Government's policy to encourage people to leave or, indeed, to take early retirement from the Civil Service to allow the incidence of low pay to increase dramatically? Is the Minister aware that one in four civil servants, including security guards, telephonists and others, earn less than £100 per week and that therefore their pay is extremely low? What will the Government do about that?

Mr. Hayhoe: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her ingenuity in getting a question about low pay into one concerned with voluntary retirement. If she is seeking to make the level at which people leave the Civil Service voluntarily an indication of how they regard pay, I must tell her that voluntary resignations are about 50 per cent. of the level of three or four years ago.

Northern Region

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the number of Civil Service posts transferred to the northern region since May 1979.

Mr. Hayhoe: As I have told the hon. Gentleman on many occasions, the dispersal programme announced on 26 July 1979 did not include any transfer of posts to the northern region. Details of posts that may have been transferred by Departments for management reasons are not held centrally.

Mr. Dormand: Is it not an absolute disgrace that in such a long period not a single Civil Service job has been transferred to that region which, continually, has had the highest unemployment in the country? Is it not a fact that some Civil Service posts have been transferred out of the Northern region? As the Government have complete control of the matter, is it not an indication that they have given up trying to help the Northern region?

Mr. Hayhoe: As I said, we are abiding by the dispersal programme that we announced in July 1979. As for the employment of civil servants in the Northern region, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is by no means the region with the lowest number of civil servants, whatever criteria we use on which to base that fact, whether it be on the number of the population available for work or anything else.

Mr. Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend review the dispersal policy, given that the Department of Industry has said that jobs will not just be moved about the country for the sake of it but that an examination of the economic costs involved will first be made?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am sure that we are right to carry through to its conclusion the dispersal policy that we announced in July 1979. The Government have no plans to examine another wave of dispersals.

Retired Civil Servants

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what rules are laid down regarding the disclosure by retired civil servants of official information gained during their service.

Mr. Hayhoe: Retired civil servants continue to be bound by the Official Secrets Acts and by the duty to respect their employers' confidence in respect of information to which they had access while serving.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the liberal use of Foreign Office telegrams and intelligence reports by Sir Nicholas Henderson in a very tendentious 11-page article in The Economist, do Ministers understand that many of his colleagues, equally senior and distinguished, think that there is one rule for the rest of them and another for Sir Nicholas Henderson?

Mr. Hayhoe: The same rules apply to all retired civil servants. The hon. Gentleman should raise the details of the point that he has in mind with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Onslow: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with his ability to enforce the rules relating to the disclosure of official information by serving civil servants?

Mr. Hayhoe: I regard my own abilities as limited. I listened earlier with much interest, as did the whole House, to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister persuade his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to extend the rules to former chief constables, such as the one in west Yorkshire?

Mr. Hayhoe: As chief constables are not civil servants, I cannot answer that question. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter he should raise it with the Home Secretary, rather than seek to have it dealt with in a roundabout way through me.

Unified Grades

Mr. Robert Sheldon: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many staff are expected to be in each of the three new unified grades in the Civil Service announced on 23 November, Official Report, c. 172–73.

Mr. Hayhoe: Grade 4, the highest of the three new unified grades, will contain approximately 180 staff; grade 5, approximately 2,100 staff; and grade 6, approximately 3,400 staff.

Mr. Sheldon: Is the Minister aware that the extension of the open structure is one of the few recommendations of the Fulton committee to have been accepted by the Government? How much further in that direction does the hon. Gentleman intend to go? Is he aware that the present relationship between the Government and the Civil Service makes it difficult to achieve this extension of the open structure? What consultations has the hon. Gentleman had with the civil service unions concerned?

Mr. Hayhoe: The views among the civil service unions about this extension are, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, mixed. The IPCS is in favour; the First Division Association is somewhat ambivalent; and the Society of Civil and Public Servants is opposed to it. In those circumstances, the Government thought it right to go ahead with implementing the recommendation, and we are considering the possibility of carrying it further down the Civil Service structure. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in the issue, as he served on the Fulton Committee and was Minister of State, Civil Service Department, when no doubt these matters were under consideration. I am glad to have been involved in this further extension of unified grading.

Mr. Eggar: Will this welcome extension of unified grading make it easier to ensure that the civil servants manage better?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, I think it will. It will improve career prospects, and those serving in the unified grades will feel that their jobs are more worth while. Some of the differentiation between the different grades at these levels, which has led to friction in the past, will be removed.

Harrods (Bomb Incident)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the bomb incident in Knightsbridge last Saturday afternoon.
At 12.41 pm on Saturday, 17 December, the central London Samaritans received a telephone message that the IRA had placed a car bomb outside Harrods and that there were two bombs inside Harrods, one in Oxford street and another in Littlewoods store in Oxford street. The telephone call was made by a man with an Irish accent, and a code word previously unknown to the police authorities was used to preface the message. As subsequent events showed, much of the message was false. In addition, the police had already received 22 other similar messages earlier that day about suspicious devices, all of which turned out to be false alarms.
The Samaritans passed on the message to New Scotland Yard at 12.44 pm. At 12.48 pm police units in the three divisions concerned were alerted. The stores were also alerted and put their own contingency procedures into operation. Police on ordinary and special security patrol and traffic duties instantly started a systematic search of the immediate vicinity for suspicious motor vehicles. Some roads were closed to the public and some premises were evacuated. Efforts were also made to establish the authenticity of the code word, but with no success. At Harrods police officers were stationed at each of the doors leading to Hans crescent to prevent people leaving the store by that route, while the road outside was cleared and searched.
Nothing was found in Oxford street; but at 1.21 pm a bomb estimated at some 25 lb exploded in a car parked in Hans crescent. It killed five people: a policeman, a policewoman, a young mother, a reporter and an American citizen. In addition, 92 people were injured, of whom 20 are still in hospital, five of them seriously injured. Of the 78 civilians injured, several were children, of whom two are still in hospital. The bomb also caused extensive damage to property, including many homes in the area and cars parked in the street.
Subsequent investigations have established that the car used was a blue Austin 1300 GT, registration number KFP 252K, which the police are engaged in tracing. The bomb was detonated by a timing device similar to that used in other IRA attacks.
A mass of debris and other evidence is being carefully sifted and examined, and other inquiries about the car and its contents are being vigorously pursued. I assure the House that everything possible is being done to bring those responsible for this outrage to justice.
The IRA made a statement last night in Dublin in which it admitted responsibility for the attack, as well as for the bomb outside Woolwich barracks 10 days ago. It also claimed that the attack was unauthorised and would not be repeated, and regretted the civilian casualties. As I have said elsewhere, I find the disclaimer of responsibility utterly contemptible. Those who place a bomb of this size in a street crowded with Christmas shoppers cannot evade responsibility in that way. Moreover, the bomb was timed to go off just at the moment when those investigating the situation were likely to be approaching it. I totally reject the implied distinction between civilian and police

casualties. What has happened is that the IRA has found that the action taken by its members has caused universal revulsion and condemnation. It is a piece of nauseating hypocrisy for it now to try and disown it and to claim that some kinds of brutal murder are legitimate and some are illegitimate.
The whole House will, I am sure, wish to join me in expressing a sense of outrage at what has occurred, sympathy with the victims and their families, and admiration for all those, including the police, emergency services and staff at the hospitals, who have worked tirelessly and with devotion to deal with the aftermath of this monstrous crime.
Before this incident the Commissioner had already taken special action in central London to counter recent terrorist threats. He had increased the number of police officers on traffic, crime and public order duties and had deployed additional officers from special units, including dog handlers, to inner London districts. He had also, following the Woolwich bomb incident on 10 December, issued an appeal for stores and the public to exercise increased vigilance.
I reviewed yesterday with the Commissioner progress on his investigations into the incident and on further measures which he has now put in hand for the public's greater protection in the weeks ahead. The Commissioner has introduced an additional measure whereby a number of vehicles are charged specifically with the task of responding to bomb threats anywhere in the Metropolitan area. These crews are patrolling 24 hours a day; they are able to respond swiftly to any threat received and to summon specialist help where necessary. The Commissioner has further increased by 64 officers the number of dog handlers deployed, deployed 30 additional traffic branch officers, and increased uniform foot duty officers by 320 in the inner district. He has also increased the number of CID and special branch officers by 200 in central London and deployed a further four special patrol group units totalling 120 officers in the inner districts. Particular care has also been taken to ensure that policing against terrorist threats is fully maintained elsewhere in the London area during this period.
Public vigilance is now essential to give full effect to the extra measures to increase security that I have outlined. Those who perpetrated this crime will already have learnt that their action has in no way weakened the unshakeable resolve of the Government and the public alike that violence will not secure their objective. Indeed, if anything, such an outrage makes our resolution and determination stronger than ever.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I offer our heartfelt sympathy to the families and other loved ones of those who lost their lives in Saturday's atrocity—the courageous members of the Metropolitan police who were killed in bravely carrying out their duties to the community, and the innocent shoppers and passers-by cut down while preparing for a festival of celebration. It is especially painful that all who died were so young. We offer our sympathy to those who have been injured, some of them dreadfully maimed, and to their families. We thank all those in the hospitals dedicating themselves to ease the suffering. Like the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister and


the Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I have had the privilege of meeting some of them.
We in the House of Commons, and the British people whom we represent, are united in our utter and implacable determination to stand firm against the evil men who perpetrated this deed, and who now characteristically and contemptibly seek to creep away from the consequences of their inhumanity. The British Parliament will make no concessions to the bullet and the bomb.
We welcome the additional security measures which the Home Secretary has announced and we earnestly hope that they will grant a greater measure of safety to our people as they go about their lawful and peaceful occasions. Every effort must and will be made to trace and capture those responsible for Saturday's outrage, together with their fellow gangsters. All of our people are aware of the risks that they face and know that they must be accepted if the methods and processes of democracy are to be upheld.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his expressions of sympathy to the victims and for his thanks to those involved in the aftermath of the bombing. The unity of the House on an occasion such as this is a bastion of protection for us all.

Mr. James Molyneaux: On behalf of those whom I represent, I offer our deepest sympathy to the bereaved and injured. Will the Government remember that political parties in the Irish Republic and elsewhere share the IRA's objectives and that the hope of the attainment of that objective provides the incentive for continuing terrorism?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said, and I note his observations about the political background.

Mr. Julian Amery: The aftermath of such an incident is not the best time to reach a cool appreciation of the position, but will my right hon. and learned Friend and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland consider carefully whether there is not now a much stronger argument for preventive detention of potential terrorists than has hitherto been the case?

Mr. Brittan: That course was followed in the past, and those who were responsible for it concluded that its termination was desirable and its continuation unhelpful. However, we shall keep all measures under review.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The people of Northern Ireland can have real sympathy with those who have suffered because of this terrible, diabolical atrocity. During the past 15 years they have passed through a similar long, dark nightmare of atrocities. The Government's resolve will be welcomed by the people of Northern Ireland and we trust that a spirit similar to that shown by them during the Falklands campaign will be exercised with the same determination today. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate how the people of Northern Ireland feel at this time when one such terrible incident in London has called forth such an outburst of condemnation, and rightly so, yet they are frequently faced with such sacrifice and death?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said and I appreciate that what London saw on Saturday is something with which the people of Northern Ireland have to live daily.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Secretary of State agree that most British people believe, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), that what happened on Saturday was an atrocity? When some members of the Provisional IRA say that they have espoused the cause of Socialism, they have espoused National Socialism akin to that of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. No one who seeks a political solution in Northern Ireland condones murder by the Provisional IRA, the INLA, the Red Hand commandos or the paramilitaries on both sides of the divide. What we object to is murder from wherever it comes. We must not show panic. The dignity of the House is something that we must put over.
There is no point in detention, because in the days of detention there were more murders. I legalised Sinn Fein because we must leave a chink for political action, much as we disagree with murder. If we think of having identity cards, I hope that the matter will be considered carefully, because the information that was given to me showed that it would be counter-productive. "Remain firm" must be the call, and we must not run into policies which will only be counter-productive.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to condemn murder from whatever direction it comes. It should not be our task to dignify those acts, for whatever reasons they are committed, as they are no more than foul crimes of the most barbaric kind. The right hon. Gentleman has given his views on the lessons to be learnt from his considerable experience of such matters, and the House will wish to consider what he said.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: (Bury St. Edmunds): I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his tribute to the men and women of the Metropolitan police and I welcome the measures which the Commissioner is taking to strengthen the anti-terrorist forces in central London. Will my right hon. and learned Friend do two things to assist the police further? First, will he explain to the nation and, if need be, to the House the importance of getting on to the statute book quickly the powers that are provided in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill and the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, especially the powers of stop and search? Secondly, will he personally review the manpower and resources available to the special branch and reject any suggestion of dismantling the one arm of the police service which has a real chance of helping to protect our citizens against this dreadful plague?

Mr. Brittan: There is no question of the special branch being dismantled. The Government consider that it is highly desirable that those two Bills should be placed on the statute book as soon as possible.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I associate the Liberal party with all the expressions of sympathy offered to the bereaved and injured, and with the warm appreciation of the work done by the police and the other public services. Is it not true that in tracking down the Baader Meinhof group in Germany the German Administration believed that the use of identify cards was indispensable, both to track down


individuals and to uncover safe houses? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that although it is true, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said a moment ago, that most British people would not like such a system, nevertheless we would thole it—put up with it—if it became more likely that the evil men who are beyond reasoning could be tracked down and brought to justice for their activities?

Mr. Brittan: I should have no hesitation in supporting such a measure if I believed that it would make a significant contribution to tracking down terrorists, but I am not yet persuaded that that would be the case.

Sir Hugh Fraser: Has consideration been given to using the special constabulary in London, which is fairly large, to assist the regular police force? Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that any talks with either the military or the political wings of the Provisionals in Northern Ireland will cease? This point was raised yesterday by the Prime Minister of Southern Ireland, when it was said that ever since the ill-fated talks started by Viscount Whitelaw suspicion has remained that there is a channel of communication. That channel must be completely blocked. Until it is, we have no certainty that the House or the Government are standing totally firm on terrorism.

Mr. Brittan: No such talks are taking place, and no such talks will take place. The special constabulary is supplementary to the ordinary police and will be used as necessary, but it must be for the Commissioner to decide whether the specials have a role to play in these situations.

Mr. John Hume: I join in the expression of sympathy to the victims of Saturday's bomb outrage at Harrods. Not for the first time in 14 years am I searching for new words to describe an atrocity. There are none. They have all been used. As an Irishman standing in this House I am ashamed, and I believe that my shame is shared by Irish people everywhere, that anyone could commit such an atrocity in the name of Ireland. If those who planted that bomb are Irish patriots, if those who provided them with the equipment and the plan are Irish patriots, and if those who are members of the same movement are Irish patriots, God save Ireland.
It will not have escaped the attention of the Home Secretary that, as well as the atrocity in Harrods, this weekend touched other aspects of the problem. A young soldier and a young guard were murdered in the Irish Republic while doing their duty, a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment was murdered in Nothern Ireland and a young Catholic, innocently going home, was murdered. The events in the Irish Republic and at Harrods have received international publicity, but the events in Northern Ireland have not. Murder there has become commonplace. It is there that the cancer is.
The political cancer that is Northern Ireland is spreading its tentacles, and it is an urgent and serious problem. The problem represents the failure of Britain and Ireland to sort out their relationships. That failure has been pushed into a corner called Northern Ireland. The people in all sections of Northern Ireland have been its victims. The urgency for the British and Irish Governments to act together on all aspects of the problem could not be more

serious. The problem demands attention at the highest level of Government if we are to put an end for ever to atrocities and outrages such as this.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the wider dimensions of terrorism affecting Ireland, both sides of the Irish Sea and both sides of the border in Ireland. There is an underlying political problem, but today I think that the right course is to make it clear that what happened on Saturday will do nothing towards its solution.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider suggesting to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that over the coming week parking facilities are withdrawn from around targets likely to be chosen by these evil, unprincipled and criminal murderers? As one who was quite close to the scene, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to pass on to the organisers of the emergency services my congratulations on the speed and effectiveness of their response.

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is right about the speed and effectiveness of the emergency services' response. His modesty has prevented him from saying that he contributed. I am sure that the House would like to express its appreciation of the fact that one of our number did so. I have discussed with the Commissioner the matter of parking, but, with his years of experience in Northern Ireland, his considered view is that it would not help to have a parking ban, for a variety of reasons relating to the way in which terrorism can and does work. I think that that is a judgment we should respect.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I associate myself with sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that all Opposition Members share the horror at this barbaric act which slaughtered people who had nothing to do with the struggle and which has given a malevolent and vicious twist to an already intractable problem. May I make the appeal that nothing is said which will give any incentive to any unofficial grouping to try to engage in retaliation across the sectarian divide, because that will only deepen the problem? May I say how horrified we are, but we hope that something will be done to prevent us from being here in another 14 years' time expressing similar sentiments after terrible things have happened once again?

Mr. Brittan: Any attempt at retaliation would be just as indefensible, just as horrific and just as much to be condemned as what happened on Saturday.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: May I say on behalf of Kensington residents, and, I am sure, of Chelsea and Westminter residents, how proud and grateful we are that members of the Metropolitan police, male and female, are willing to risk their limbs and even their lives to protect the public? On this occasion we should consider not just the temporary reinforcement of central London police but an increase in the permanent establishment of B division and the other inner London police districts. May I add on a personal note that my daughter is currently working at Harrods. From what she told me about Saturday's incident, I understand that the security practices carried out at the store are exemplary and may have contributed considerably to the saving of life.

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that the House will agree entirely with the comments of my hon. Friend, who is speaking on behalf of Kensington, in expressing his gratitude for the bravery of the men and women of the Metropolitan police. Were my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) not a member of the Government and thereby inhibited from participating in the exchanges, I know that he would wish to say the same on behalf of Chelsea, where the incident occurred.
We will keep the issue of establishments under continuous review.
Sufficient time has now elapsed for us to consider these matters a little more carefully than in the first hours after the event. The decision of Harrods to search the store and not to pour those inside out on to the street saved a great many lives.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with those who have expressed sympathy to the victims of this dastardly offence? Among the more inspiring words spoken this weekend have been those of the relatives, who have shown great determination and an unwillingness to be deflected by their personal tragedy. Whether violence occurs in the Province, in the capital city or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, it will not further by one step the objectives of the perpetrators.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The relatives have uttered inspiring words. I was especially struck when talking to one of the victims in hospital, who, quite without prompting, volunteered the observation that even though he had suffered as a result of what had happened it had not shaken his resolve bn one iota.

Mr. John Wheeler: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement this afternoon will be widely welcomed by both the residential and commercial community in central London, first, because of their determination not to be bombed out of their homes or businesses and, secondly, because they welcome the increased police support on the streets of central London, for which they will make their own contribution of support?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. As I have said consistently in public statements since the incident, for us to be, as my hon. Friend said, "bombed out of our homes and businesses" would be the greatest victory that the IRA could secure. We shall not allow it to happen.

Ms. Clare Short: We all join in condemning the vile and nasty act which occurred on Saturday, but I appeal to the Home Secretary and the House not to demand action which could lead to an escalation of the violence in Northern Ireland and Britain in the coming months. I refer especially to the demand for the proscription of Sinn Fein, an organisation which has the supporting votes of 42 per cent. of the Nationalist community. The demand that it should be proscribed is likely to criminalise and point towards violence many young men and women of the community, as we. experienced previously during internment. That would be a disgraceful and dangerous act. I appeal most sincerely to the Government not to move in that direction.

Mr. Brittan: I certainly would not wish to do anything which could lead to escalation. Whether the action to which the hon. Lady referred would have that effect is open to two views, but her observations are noted.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure to the limit of his influence that the details of this appalling crime receive the widest possible circulation in the United States of America?

Mr. Brittan: Certainly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has today broadcast by satellite to the United States.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I well understand that many hon. Members wish to participate, but there is other business to be dealt with.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Did my right hon. and learned Friend hear the broadcast yesterday by Lord Fitt, one of the bravest men ever to sit in the House, who advanced a different viewpoint from that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)? He said that the Provisional Sinn Fein consisted of daytime politicians serving the cause of violence and we should seriously consider their proscription.

Mr. Brittan: I heard the words of Lord Fitt, and he'was rightly described by my hon. Friend. There is room for two legitimate views about the wisdom or otherwise of proscribing Sinn Fein. We are urgently considering this matter. I beg the House to believe that powerful arguments point in both directions.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call four more hon. Members.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I recognise that the Dublin Government are making a major effort to stamp out terrorism, but will the Government re-examine the arrangements for the common travel area with the Republic? Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that the lack of adequate checks on travellers from Ireland helps some drug smugglers as well as some terrorists?

Mr. Brittan: I shall draw the observations of my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the House this afternoon has been full of words, words, words and sympathy, sympathy, sympathy but that the country wants action? We have failed the nation. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that politicians very seldom reflect the views of the electorate? Should we not hold a referendum on capital punishment for terrorists? That is what people want. We should give them the opportunity to vote on that issue. How many more people will be slaughtered while hon. Members sit around and funk the issue in the Division Lobby when they get the chance to reintroduce capital punishment?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend knows my views on that subject. I do not believe that the arguments have been affected one way or the other by what has happened since I expressed my views.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly expressed the abhorrence of the House at the outrage and his determination to bring the individual perpetrators of this hideous crime to justice, but has not the time come for the Government to consider whether a more effective way to deal with the IRA would be to ensure that its cause suffers with every outrage?
As the IRA's cause is supposed to be to get Britain out of Ireland, has not the time come to consider saying that Britain will stay in Northern Ireland for ever and that, thanks to the IRA, the concept of a united Ireland is dead?

Mr. Brittan: I am not sure that such a declaration would be the right way forward. The Government's position remains unchanged. We will not countenance change in Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom if it is brought about as a result of violence. Any action must be on the basis of a democratic solution.

Sir David Price: As our gentle democracy is always open to terrorists, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that without safe houses the IRA terrorists could not operate so effectively? Will he consider whether he and the Metropolitan police—indeed, the police throughout Britain—have the necessary powers and equipment to deal with those who keep safe houses?

Mr. Brittan: The powers are adequate. The problem is rooting out the people involved. If my hon. Friend has any further suggestions, I shall obviously consider them sympathetically.

Greenham Common

Mr. Roland Boyes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the contingency security arrangements that the Secretary of State for Defence has made for dealing with unauthorised persons entering the Greenham common missile base, following the growing use of physical force to deal with such persons.
I feel that after our discussions during the past half an hour there should be a pause for reflection.
I have raised an important matter that deals with the possible shooting of unarmed, innocent people who are campaigning on behalf of us all to end the nonsense of having cruise missiles under American control based in Britain. We see daily the growing problems of guarding the missiles. The matter illustrates the magnitude of the danger that both sides of the House appreciate, including the Secretary of State, who has had to resort to stating that he might sanction the shooting of campaigners. It is an outrage that a senior member of the Government should make such a statement.
The matter is specific because it deals with a document that has been prepared by the Secretary of State, which was quoted at length in The Observer on Sunday. To demonstrate why I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, I shall quote the points raised in the document, as reported in The Observer. It states that
US troops might shoot British citizens once the missiles arrived.
The Secretary of State has already announced that missiles have arrived, so soldiers might now shoot the women of Greenham common. Secondly, the document states:
Mr. Heseltine had therefore arranged for a ring of British troops to stand between the Americans and protesters.
I assure the House that the women of Greenham common will find no consolation from the bullet having been fired by a British soldier rather than an American soldier.
On 1 November I asked the Secretary of State to give the House an assurance that no shots would be fired at demonstrators, and he replied:
I shall categorically give no such an assurance."—[Official Report, 1 November 1983; Vol. 46, c. 729.]
The right hon. Gentleman should come before the House and say that, after reflection, he withdraws that statement.
The Home Secretary has said today that violence will not achieve its objective. Threats of violence, including threats to shoot the women of Greenham common, will not stop any of us from campaigning to rid this country of those weapons, which put us in daily danger.
The matter is urgent because of the continuing allegations of violence by the women of Greenham common and the growing intolerance of the security forces. Only two weeks ago a number of women had fingers and hands broken when they touched the wires and were beaten with sticks.
The issue of violence has been raised many times in the House by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wokington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). The more incidents that occur such as those two weeks ago, the lower is the threshold at which a shot is fired, and the greater the problems that we shall have to face in the House.
The Secretary of State should come to the House and make another statement—as I wanted him to do after I spoke on 5 December—about the security at Greenham common, the escalation of violence and the possibility of people dying. We should debate the matter so that the Secretary of State can tell us that, after due reflection, the statement that he made on 1 November was in error and unnecessarily endangered the women of Greenham common.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the contingency security arrangements that the Secretary of State for Defence has made for dealing with unauthorised persons entering the Greenham common missile base, following the growing use of physical force to deal with such persons.
I have listened carefully, as has the whole House, to what the hon. Member said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Scott Lithgow (Britoil Contract)

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement made one and a half hours ago of the cancellation by Britoil of its contract with Scott Lithgow for the construction of a semi-submersible drilling rig.
This is a specific matter in that the cancellation of this order will lead inevitably to the loss of about 4,000 jobs at Scott Lithgow in my constituency, where male unemployment is running at approximately 20 per cent. I believe that that is a conservative estimate.
This is an urgent matter as the contract must be renegotiated within the next two or three weeks or be lost for ever. Ministers must involve themselves in the efforts to avoid such an outcome, which would be disastrous for the lower Clyde, for Scotland and for mainland Britain as a whole.
This is an important matter because job losses will not be confined to the 4,000 people at Scott Lithgow. Furthermore, the United Kingdom's involvement in offshore technology would receive a severe setback if Britoil were to cancel this order and go cap in hand to south-east Asia for a replacement drilling rig.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will give sympathetic consideration to my request.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asked leave of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement made one and a half hours ago of the cancellation by Britoil of its contract with Scott Lithgow for the construction of a semi-submersible drilling rig.
I have listened most carefully to what the hon. Member said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. However, he will know that there are other opportunities for him to raise that matter—perhaps even today.

Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate what you have just said in terms of the criteria that you must apply to Standing Order No. 10 applications and the opportunities of raising that matter in other ways. I am sure that you appreciate that those other ways will not be directed to a Minister who is departmentally responsible for the crisis facing Scott Lithgow. This is a real crisis, with 4,000 jobs at stake, and the future of Britain's part in a key area of high technology in the North sea is at risk. Is it possible, therefore, to ensure that before we rise for the Christmas recess—if we do not have action by then, I fear that we shall drift into an ultimate disaster from which we cannot recover—a responsible Minister either from the Scottish Office or the Department of Trade and Industry will appear before the House to reassure us that Ministers are acting and are not really standing by as concerned, but ineffective, spectators?

Mr. Speaker: Order, I see that the Leader of the House and a Scottish Minister are on the Front Bench, and I am sure that what the hon. Mernber has said has been heard.

Mr. Bruce Millan: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appeal to the Leader of the


House to make some response to my hon. Friend's point of order. So far, we have only had a gratuitous comment, from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry during Question Time last week. He made a rather offensive and inaccurate comment about Scott Lithgow. This is a matter of extreme urgency. If nothing is done this week, the contract will be lost. More than 4,000 jobs are at stake, and I appeal to the Leader of the House to make a response and to promise us a statement by the appropriate Minister tomorrow.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I am sure that that matter can be pursued through the usual channels.

Mr. Roland Boyes: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. On two occasions I have raised the subject of the possible shooting of the women at Greenham common, and the Secretary of State has made no statement on that matter. I am looking for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. How does one—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can help the hon. Member. He does not really need my guidance. The are opportunities today when he might be able to raise that matter.

BILLS PRESENTED

ORDNANCE FACTORIES AND MILITARY SERVICES

Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Tebbit, Mr. John Moore and Mr. Geoffrey Pattie, presented a Bill to make provision for the transfer to a company or companies of certain property, rights and liabilities to which Her Majesty or a Minister of the Crown is entitled or subject and which are attributable to the operations of the royal ordnance factories; to make provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities between such companies or from them to the Secretary of State or Her Majesty; to make provision about the finances of such companies and about investment in them and their subsidiaries; to make provision for the extinguishment of certain liabilities concerning the royal ordnance factories; to make provision for the payment out of money provided by Parliament of certain sums required by the Secretary of State in relation to International Military Services Limited; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 78].

RATES

Mr. Secretary Jenkin, supported by Mr. Secretary Brittan, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Secretary Tebbit, Mr. Secretary Ridley and Mr. William Waldegrave presented a Bill to enable the Secretary of State to limit the rates made and precepts issued by local authorities; to require local authorities to consult representatives of industrial and commercial ratepayers before reaching decisions on expenditure and the means of financing it; to require notice of the rates payable in respect of a dwelling-house to be given to any occupier not in receipt of a demand note; and to make other amendments relating to rates: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 79.]

LAW REFORM (HUSBAND AND WIFE) (SCOTLAND)

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, supported by Sir Hector Morro, Mr. Barry Henderson, Mr. John Come, Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Gerald Malone, Mr. Michael Hirst and Mrs. Anne McCurley presented a Bill to amend the law relating to husband and wife and breach of promise of marriage; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 1984 and to be printed [Bill 74.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That this House do meet on Thursday at half-past Nine o'clock, that no Questions be taken after half-past Ten o'clock, and that at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Major.]

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House at its rising on Thursday do adjourn till Monday 16 January.—[Mr. Major.]

Sir Dudley Smith: There are a number of subjects competing for discussion, and inevitably we shall run out of time before they are all considered. A number of these subjects have been mentioned during the proceedings this afternoon, but I believe that before the House adjourns for Christmas, or by means of a slightly earlier return, we should consider the two important foreign affairs subjects which need discussing and which recently have not had much exposure in the House. I refer to what is virtually the Turkish-Cypriot unilateral declaration of independence in Cyprus and the growing pressure on south-west Africa and Namibia to hold so-called independent elections.
During the last parliamentary recess I was fortunate to visit, by invitation, both Cyprus and Namibia on fact-finding tours, and I have recorded these trips in the Register of Members' Activities. I emphasise, however, that I have no financial interest or stake in either country.
Recently I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary a parliamentary question about the efforts being made to assist with the situation that had arisen in Cyprus at the latter end of last summer. He replied that the Government
remain in close consultation with interested Governments and with the United Nations Secretary General. We have made clear that we shall support his efforts and stand ready to help him". —[Official Report, 7 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 170.]
That is good, and I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken that attitude.
Having been to Turkish Cyprus before UDI, and having interviewed most of the leading members of the Turkish-Cypriot regime—I had two illuminating discussions with the President, Mr. Denktash—I suggest that we would be deluding ourselves if we thought that what has happened is other than merely an acknowledgment of what has been the situation for a long time. My investigations led me firmly to the belief that the Cyprus Government have in effect represented only the Greek Cypriots and that a bi-zonal federal state on the island is the only practical answer for progress and peace.
I emphasise that I do not dislike the Greek Cypriots or, for that matter, the Greeks. In the past, I have visited the Greek part of Cyprus. I have no doubt that the Turkish Cypriots have not had a fair deal and that their people lived in real fear before the arrival of the Turkish troops. Significantly, since that time there has been no bloodshed, whereas for many years before there had been bloodshed and mayhem. On the contrary, now it is a case of live and let live.
Bearing in mind the histories of those people, it would be a brave man who would suggest that Greeks and Turks stand a good change of living harmoniously together. History is against that, and, in the circumstances, a divided island is, in my reluctant view, the only practical solution to the problem. The Turkish Cypriots are poor in comparison with their fellow islanders, and they lack resources, especially for water and irrigation projects. They badly need international understanding and recognition. In this respect, the United Nations could have helped far more than it has. All too typically, it seems to

be backing one side—not the Turkish Cypriots. The British Government must take a far more robust and realistic attitude to a matter for which we still have a considerable moral responsibility.
My second brief point concerns Namibia. As a member of a small parliamentary delegation from both main parties which visited Namibia towards the end of the summer, I am convinced that progress there will never be achieved fairly without the removal of the threat of Cuban troops within the Angolan border. I went into that area with my colleagues, and it is one of the less healthy places in the world.
When our report was published it received a fair amount of exposure. There was some condemnation, but also, I am glad to say, some praise. 'That report, which all members of the delegation signed, described the United Nations decision to grant exclusive recognition to SWAPO, which is carrying out a guerrilla war from bases within Angolan territory, as irresponsible. I go further. I regard it as utterly unacceptable. How can a United Nations agency uphold any form of terrorism of that kind? We had a statement in the House today about terrorism and a number of hon. Members said that murder and mayhem must be condemned whatever the circumstances. That should apply wherever in the world such activity takes place.
If the United Nations cannot see that, it will dimish still further its standing as a supposedly impartial body with worldwide responsibilities to be carried out on an even-handed basis. The United Nations well knows that SWAPO is directly supported and financed by the Soviets and is Marxist in its ambitions. The United Nations should now take a far more even-handed role in the proceedings.
As we said in our report, if so-called independence is thrust on Namibia in existing circumstances it will be a disaster for all its inhabitants. It is not a realistic option at present and we should do well to recognise that. I hope that the Government will take a firmer, more decisive line in helping south-west Africa towards true democracy. As we know all too well to our cost, most of the vast continent of Africa is not represented by true democracies. Here is an opportunity to help in its development.
I hope, therefore, that especially on Turkish Cyprus and Namibia there will be a more positive approach by the Foreign Office.

Mr. Jack Dormand: The House should not adjourn for the Christmas recess until there has been a comprehensive statement by the Government about pit closures. At Question Time last week, I told the Prime Minister that a massive campaign was being launched in my constituency to try to prevent further pit closures solely on economic grounds. That campaign involved not only the trade unions and the Labour party but the local authorities, the chamber of trade, industrialists and many other local organisations. That wide involvement is highly significant, as it shows that pit closures affect not just miners and their families but almost everyone in the community, not least the local business men whose trade suffers from the loss of purchasing power of hundreds of miners. In Easington district, more than 30 per cent. of the work force depends directly or indirectly on the National Coal Board for employment. That is a measure of the crucial importance of pit closures to people in areas such as mine.
There is another side of the argument. For those who have never lived in a pit village, it is almost impossible to appreciate the extent to which the pit dominates the community. To destroy the pit is to destroy much of the life of the village, its activities and even its conversation, as well as its pride and spirit.
The economics of coal mining cannot, of course, be ignored, and we have never sought to do so, but the Government have not even proved an economic case for closure. The present massive stocks of coal are the direct result of the Government's disastrous industrial policies, which are destroying the manufacturing sector of this country. We keep hoping that the much-predicted upturn in the economy will materialise one of these days. That will certainly require a fundamental change in Government policy, but if it happens most of the coal stocks will rapidly disappear.
In considering the economics of coal mining, I challenge the Government to examine the whole picture. Research suggests that the total claims on the social services resulting from the unemployment caused are greater than the financial loss incurred by a pit losing money. In June 1982, the Government estimated that the cost to public funds for each unemployed miner was £7,188 in the first year and £6,326 in the second year. On those figures, the cost of closures over a 10-year period would be £4·5 billion compared with a saving to the NCB of £2·36 billion. In other words, the cost of closure is £3 per tonne greater than the subsidy required to keep the pits breaking even. No one suggests that uneconomic pits should be kept open for their own sake, but the totality of the local situation must be taken into consideration before a pit is closed.
I make no apology for mentioning, although not in detail, the other factors which unnecessarily contribute to pit closures, such as the increase in nuclear-generated electricity, the importing of coal and the far greater financial assistance given by other EEC countries to their coal industries. According to the European Commission's statistics, last year the United Kingdom Government spent £3·48 per tonne to support its coal production whereas average spending in the Community was £5·57 per tonne, topped by France at £21·84 per tonne and Belgium at £19 per tonne. Those substantial differences in support show clearly the extent to which our coal industry labours under a considerable handicap compared with its counterparts in the EEC.
There is also a complete lack of dynamism in promoting the use of coal, a feeble export drive and a lack of commitment to the Venice agreement — from a Government who almost daily preach about the sanctity of international agreement. All of this takes place against a background of coal reserves which will last for centuries and which some nations would do almost anything to possess.
The trauma of pit closures in mining communities would be bearable if alternative employment were available, but I know of no coalfield in which such a smooth transition is possible. In my constituency, the Government propose to scale new heights of lunacy. There is not only the danger of pit closures. In 1985 the Government intend to abolish the Peterlee new town development corporation, which is the chief job-finding agency in the area. The corporation, with its dedication

and expertise, is second to none in the country. Its record speaks for itself. It attracts more than half of the jobs that come into County Durham each year, many of them from overseas. I have raised this matter many times with the Government and failed each time to obtain a reply which even begins to make sense. I beg the Government to think again on this issue.
Last week we debated the Government's White Paper, "Regional Industrial Development". It is not possible to go into detail on those proposals in a debate such as this. Nevertheless, almost everything in that White Paper will militate against development in areas such as mine. I and my colleagues from the north will return to the subject time and again. The Government have carried out some of the most disastrous policies pursued by any Administration this century. No policy is more crazy than closing pits solely on economic grounds and against the background which I have described. There is neither economic nor social justification for such a policy. I hope that the Government will begin to change their mind with regard to pit closures, which deeply affect the lives of thousands of men, women and children throughout Britain's coalfields.

Mr. John Stokes: There are several vitally serious matters which I wish to raise today as being worthy of debate before we adjourn for the Christmas recess.
One concerns the extraordinary circumstances of the women at Greenham common, about whom we heard a short while ago. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) said, those women continue to misbehave, sometimes violently, at great cost to the public. They cause injury to the police, upset the local inhabitants and are a great shame to this civilised country which has kept the peace in these islands for more than 1,000 years. It is incredible that neither the Government nor the local authority can remove those people. They will be a continuing shame until they are removed.
Another subject which is in all of our minds, especially since the dreadful outrage in London on Saturday, is the continuing action of the IRA. The great majority of the nation expects that those criminals, whose crimes are worse than any others known to man, should suffer the death penalty when they are caught and convicted. I shall not dwell on that topic, however, as I wish to refer to another danger which is much further away.
The House should not adjourn for the Christmas recess until it has debated the urgent issue of the safety of British troops in Beirut and the effect of United States policies in the middle east on the Western Alliance. I naturally agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that we cannot withdraw our contingent from Beirut at this moment, but I hope that the circumstances of our troops there will be considered daily. It is vital that we try to exercise maximum influence on President Reagan. The only person who can do that is the Prime Minister with her strong character and record of backing the American alliance.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: As in the case of Grenada?

Mr. Stokes: The position of the peace-keeping force in the Lebanon has changed since President Reagan


announced his alliance with Israel. The force can no longer be considered as neutral. That puts the United Kingdom and its troops in the most difficult circumstances. The Syrians are most unlikely to withdraw from Lebanon unless there are real signs that the Israelis will also withdraw from the south. Unfortunately, the Americans are now most unlikely to put pressure on the Israelis to do that.
There was no need for the United States Government to pick a quarrel with Syria and to drive it unwillingly into the arms of the Soviets. The Syrians, whom I know well, are a xenophobic people and they do not dislike the Americans any more than anyone else. A more intelligent American foreign policy could have detached the Syrians from the Russians and thus paved the way for a settlement in Lebanon.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stokes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. The hon. Gentleman speaks a great deal and at some length.
I know Lebanon and its people well and I like them. They are basically traders and are not really interested in politics. However, the country is now in absolute chaos. The President and his forces control only about five square miles in the city of Beirut. I strongly doubt whether Lebanon as we know it will become a viable state again.
For centuries under the Turks, Lebanon was part of a greater Syria. Syria must have a powerful say in Lebanon's future. That need not be in the least disastrous for the West, provided that we play our cards properly with Syria. It is absurd to say that the conflict in Lebanon is part of the great East-West struggle. It probably has far more to do with the next American presidential election and the colossal power of the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States. What happens in the Gulf is far more important for Western interests than what happens in Lebanon.
What concerns me, and what should concern the House before we adjourn for the Christmas recess, is the effect that American policy in the middle east will have on moderate Arab states, such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and on the NATO Alliance in Europe. Every 16-inch shell that is fired from the USS New Jersey reminds us of the dangers to the Western Alliance.
My previous speech in the House on 31 October was a passionate defence of the American alliance. As an English patriot I have to admit that that alliance is essential to our safety and future. However, unless President Reagan thinks again about his policies in the middle east, anti-American feeling here, which is never far below the surface — especially, I am afraid, among some Opposition Members — will continue to grow. That would cause more trouble about the siting of cruise missiles here and about the alliance in general.
Meanwhile, our 100 soldiers in Beirut, who are so well led and respected, each day face the risk of shells starting to fall on their compound. No British interests whatever are involved there. If any of our soldiers are killed, what will they have died for?

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Two weeks ago I drew the attention of the House to the intended closure of Hadfields in my constituency. I pointed out that

for a century the name of the firm had been a byword for excellence in steelmaking. It had been the nation's smithy in two world wars. It was private and was still making a profit, but it was to be killed off by the Government-sponsored Phoenix 2 joint venture. Since then my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and I have tabled early-day motion 353 on Hadfields and, therefore, I believe that before the House adjourns it should at least take note of what is happening to Hadfields.
Phoenix 2 represents a further stage in the Government's strategy to slash by nearly one third steelmaking capacity in Britain's special steels sector. Their ultimate aim is to bring the country's special steels producers within a single private sector monopoly producer. Only last week the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry made a speech which was quoted in the Financial Times on 16 December. The report said that the Minister
reiterated his view that ultimately there was 'no part of BSC that could not be privatised.'
John Pennington of the BSC special steels section has gone on record as saying that Hadfields may not be the last steel plant to close because of the Phoenix 2 project.
The British Independent Steel Producers Association estimates that about 20 per cent. of BSC's output directly overlaps that of the private sector and should be rationalised. It was to this association that the Minister was speaking in my earlier quotation. Phoenix 2 will still leave 10 per cent. of BSC's products competing with the private sector. The question arises: where will the axe fall next? It is believed that the future of British engineering steels will be geared to tight manning levels and the best use of high technology. This may mean that continuous casting could form the linchpin of Phoenix 2, although the high technology steel-making method has still to win over some customers who prefer the conventional methods.
Nevertheless, there is speculation and profound concern that the Tinsley park works, also located in my constituency, may be affected by the Phoenix plan. The Tinsley park plant has a proven track record of efficiency in cost per tonne of steel, even without the major investment boosts that have given continuous casting to other BSC special steels plants in south Yorkshire. However, the spectre of Phoenix 2 has cast a shadow over the 1,300-strong work force at Tinsley park. Only yesterday morning I had a meeting with the Tinsley park and district joint committee of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation and I was told that the men it represents are angry about the way in which workers have been kept in the dark about the Phoenix scheme.
Hon. Members may not know that the Phoenix 2 project was discussed for two and a half years before the announcement this surruner and that when those discussions came to a conclusion the decision was conveyed to the House on a Friday afternoon through a planted question by a Government Back Bencher. Since then there have been no further details, and hon. Members on both sides of the House can imagine the state of mind of the workers in the industry. They have seen one plant go and know that another will probably go, and perhaps it will be theirs. They do riot know whether they will be affected. The jobs of other BSC workers in south Yorkshire are not under immediate threat, but they may, as a result of Phoenix 2, lie outside the BSC. They fear particularly that pension rights and other long-established conditions of employment may be changed for the worse.
The Minister of State said something else when he was lunching last week with the association. He said that the Phoenix 2 project would be settled
very shortly, and I mean 'very'.
However, Mr. Brian Insch, the GKN director responsible for the group's steel business—GKN is an active party to the joint venture known as Phoenix 2—said:
I don't think an agreeent is as close as Mr. Lamont is suggesting.
When will BSC and GKN present the Phoenix plan to the Government? What will be their respective stakes in the venture? What plants will be closed? What will be the amount of financial assistance needed from the Government?
The trade unions see Phoenix 2 as a blatant handover of state assets to the private sector at a nominal price bearing little relation to the estimated £700 million in assets that BSC has in south Yorkshire. Union officials at affected plants in north Wales as well as south Yorkshire plan industrial action unless the management reveals more details and has more open talks. Roy Bishop, the divisional officer of the ISTC in south Yorkshire, warns that Phoenix 2 could lead to a 70,000-tonnes-a-year increase in imports of engineering steels. He has said that steelworkers would be presenting an alternative strategy to management aimed at boosting demand for steel. He also said:
We believe there is sufficient work for all of us and we ought to be planning for that. If we don't do something, unemployment will go on escalating.
The Labour movement in south Yorkshire will see it as an unforgivable betrayal of an industry into which so much dedicated effort and public money have been invested if it is sold off at give-away prices to private buyers. British Steel has many important achievements to its credit and all fair-minded people will acknowledge that its present plight is due almost entirely to world economic problems beyond national control. Britain needs British steel, and if the industry is to survive it will need far more investment than the private sector is likely to provide.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: We should not adjourn for the Christmas recess until we have given fuller consideration to the problems that arise out of Irish terrorism, in the light of the outrage on Saturday at Harrods. The problem of terrorism seems to strike the Government as being essentially one of crime — the apprehension and punishment of criminals in a special type of criminal category. As a result, when I suggested to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary earlier today that we should hit the IRA by making its cause suffer for its outrages, he replied with the customary response that no amount of violence used by the IRA will change the Government's policy.
However, it is possible for British Government policy to affect violence and the IRA's policy with regard to violence, and inadequate consideration has been given to that. We must, through Government policy, make it more difficult for the IRA to achieve its purposes. Of course, we must apprehend and convict those responsible for these outrages, but unless we get at the deep-rooted causes of the problems of Northern Ireland and, in particular, at what inspires the IRA to carry on its campaign of violence, we shall not see an end to the terror.
Having said that, one must say straight away that many people talk like this. They say that the answer must be political, but they have only one political answer. That is, to suspend democracy in Northern Ireland because we cannot agree with the majority dominating the minority. Therefore, we must make an exception of Northern Ireland and provide a constitutional framework in which the minority shares power with the majority. That is an honourable aim, and in the exceptional circumstances of Northern Ireland one can understand why successive Secretaries of State and Governments have attempted to get at the political problem of Irish terrorism through this sort of rearrangement of the constitution of Northern Ireland.
As a result, we have the present Assembly, which is moribund by the failure of the parties to co-operate in developing the powers conferred upon it by statute, and we have other constitutional forums that are designed to ensure power sharing — that is to say, giving the minority a share in the decisions taken by the majority. The big disadvantage of this approach is that we are giving the political arm of the violent extremists a cloak of respectibility by allowing it to appear as if it is a legitimate political force. One allows it both the bomb and the ballot box, and in the process, in Northern Ireland, we are witnessing the destruction of the only legitimate democratic representative of the Northern Ireland Catholic minority, the Social Democratic and Labour party. The SDLP has been destroyed because of the democratic opportunities that we have deliberately given to the men of violence and their political representatives in Sinn Fein.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for so courteously giving way. I know that one of the things he is saying is that the way to deal with terrorism politically is to make its political objectives even less attainable than they might be at the moment, but is not the only sure way of dealing with terrorism selective and responsible counter-terrorism? Is it not the case that many hon. Members and many people outside will be wishing the SAS not only a happy Christmas but good shooting as well?

Mr. Stanbrook: I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I often agree with him, but not on this occasion. He is imbued with the idea that many people hold about defeating crime through punishment. It is not only punishment that is necessarily appropriate for defeating crime. If one gets at the seat of the causes of the crime and violence, it is possible to dissipate it and remove it without bothering too much about the various forms of punishment.
I believe that we are on the wrong course in Northern Ireland. The request earlier today by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), as the only representative in the House of the Social Democratic and Labour party, that the British Government should get together with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to find a solution is, unfortunately, quite pathetic. For years and years everyone has known that if such a solution were available it could have been produced by those two democratic Governments, who both want an end to violence in Ireland and in Nothern Ireland. That way offers no hope for the future.
However, it is possible to adopt a more radical policy, if only we had the courage to pursue it. I refer to the


possibility of redrawing the boundaries of Northern Ireland to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland consist of the British people who wish to stay British and who intend to be loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen for ever. In that situation, it would be possible for a democratic solution to be applied in Northern Ireland. We could redraw the boundaries of Northern Ireland to exclude all those areas that are contiguous to the Irish Republic where there was a majority of Republicans by expressed wish, and provide generous rehabilitation grants for those displaced and for those who now regard themselves as part of the Republican minority in Northern Ireland, in Belfast and elsewhere, to go to the Republic, set up their homes and buy land there. If we then said, "This is the part of the United Kingdom —Northern Ireland—which we will hold and maintain steadfastly", that would be a permanent solution to the problem. We would, at a stroke, destroy the case of those who seek to change the constitutional position in Northern Ireland by violence.
We need to do something else as well—something which, at present, is all the more difficult because of the accidental nature of the boundaries of Northern Ireland: we must have non-sectarian parties in Northern Ireland. We must give the ordinary British citizens of Northern Ireland the opportunity to vote for people who would represent them on the local council, county council, regional assembly and in this place, completely without regard to their church or religious affiliations of any kind. At present, such is the emotional drive of both republicanism and unionism that it is impossible for political parties on the United Kingdom model to develop and increase their strength.
Once we sorted out the problem of the boundaries and the problem of those people who do not regard themselves as British and would rather regard themselves as citizens of the Irish Republic, we could allow them, if they wished, to move south of the frontier. I believe that it would then be possible to develop a system similar to that applying in the rest of the United Kingdom, whereby the Conservative party, the Labour party, the Liberal party, the SDP or other parties could recruit and organise in that part of the United Kingdom where good, loyal and true British people live and desperately need a solution to their problem. They need a proper channel for their democratic aspirations within a non-sectarian United Kingdom.
I suggest that such policies would be fruitful and would help to solve the problem, if only we could grasp them. The tragedy that occurred last Saturday, and the emotion and anger that we all feel about it, should give us at least an opportunity to look afresh at what might be done to bring peace to Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government will consider what I have said.

Mr. Frank Cook: I shall be brief. I could make the traditional appeal that the House should not go into recess for a number of reasons.
I could start by saying that the disposition of radioactive materials in a disused anhydrite mine in Billingham is causing such public concern that property values in the area are dropping catastrophically. The property market has already been greatly undermined. I could point to the great public anxiety and the reports of mining specialists in the area who are greatly worried. I could give the

Government a fair warning that the opposition campaign has been mounted by all political parties. In fact, it is nonparty political.
Some of the people taking an active part in the campaign have never been interested in anything political before. I could say that the campaign has become ecumenical. Franciscan monks from Northumberland, monks from Germany and a Roman Catholic nun from Canada are already actively engaged in mounting opposition to the Government's proposals. I could say that we have an international campaign, because we are getting information not only from the continent, the United States and Canada but now from the Soviet Union. I could warn the Government that we should have a debate on radioactive waste in Billingham before the recess. However, I shall not do that, because I know that it is pointless.
The House will recall that in my intervention in the Adjournment debate for the summer recess I summoned the spirit of Keir Hardie and his expressions of resentment in his maiden speech of 7 February 1893. He said that 4 million people were unemployed at that time through no fault of their own. That situation is chillingly parallel with the situation today. Keir Hardy and I spoke as one. We deplored the Government turning their back on enforced idleness. Our plea, not unexpectedly, was heard by the Leader of the House but not heeded. The House rose for 12 weeks. Those 12 weeks were a period of covert and surreptitious government by fear, as measure after measure was introduced in a manner that was calculated to evade any question or criticism in this Chamber from Her Majesty's Opposition.
I note with concern the Government's tendency to opt for a recess somewhat longer than is usual for a Christmas or new year break. While I wish all right hon. and hon. Members a happy Christmas and the most prosperous new year, I appeal to the Leader of the House for an assurance that this extended recess will not be used for the introduction of measures that are just as covert and surreptitious as those that were brought in during the summer recess.

5 pm

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Before the House rises for the Christmas recess I believe that it should consider certain aspects of future funding for the National Health Sevice. I shall put the position in terms of the good news and the bad.
First, here is the good news. Since 1979 spending in the NHS has doubled and continuing growth in the resources available is planned. The Government's commitment to the NHS — which I share — has been continually emphasised, as has the realistic requirement to ensure value for money.
Now I come to the bad news. Since 1979 East Hertfordshire district, in which most of my constituency is situated, has experienced a rapidly growing elderly population without sufficient facilities to accommodate all geriatric and psycho-geriatric patients. The Government have backed the use of the resource allocation working party formula for the distribution of resources to regions, but this unfortunately seems not to adapt successfully to a district when used within a region.
The resultant current news is that there have been disagreements between the authorities about whether East Hertfordshire is under-funded or over-funded. However,


there now appears to be a developing consensus both inside and outside the NHS that East Hertfordshire is under-provided in certain respects.
The resultant future news will be shaped by a number of special problems, such as the requirements of an ageing population to an extent the result of the development of first-generation new towns such as Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City. It is vital that such difficulties are accurately reflected in the services available if the best possible health care provision is to be offered.
What will be newsworthy for my constituency, because of budgetary decisions which must be reached, are the consequences which may affect whether local hospitals, such as Welfield, Queen Victoria memorial and Danesbury, can continue to care for the increasing needs of older and long-term patients and can expand to meet demand. Such decisions may also have implications for whether the Queen Elizabeth II hospital can operate fully and effectively and for the maintenance and improvement of other facilities.
The best news for my constituents who may become patients is that the Government, in consultation with regional health authorities, will recognise the specific and individual situations faced by district health authorities. Such an assurance before the House rises for the Christmas recess will bring encouragement to the North-West Thames region and East Hertfordshire district.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: The House may recall my exchanges in the House at Question Time on 29 November with the Minister of State for the Armed Forces over an article in The Observer on 13 November about the colossal waste of public money at the Ministry of Defence. The article gave many examples, of which I shall mention just one. I refer to a huge underground bunker being built in north London for the Navy. The article said that by the spring of 1981, within two years of the work starting, the cost had risen by over 500 per cent., from about £30 million to £168 million. The Navy's reaction to that was to try to keep the matter quiet.
The article said:
Ministry officials have devised a number of ways of ensuring that auditors do not see potentially embarrassing documents.
There was a massive cover-up of a massive waste of taxpayers' money.
When I asked the Minister of State about that article, he said that
there were a great many inaccuracies in the article". —[Official Report, 29 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 752.]
I presume that the answer had been carefully prepared by the Ministry and that therefore the article had been gone through with a fine toothcomb to pinpoint the inaccuracies. On the following day, 30 November, I wrote to the Minister of State asking him to detail the inaccuracies. Today, 19 days later, I have received no reply. Why the delay? If the Minister was able to say with authority that there were great inaccuracies, he should have been able to give me a specific answer to my question.
I wish to discuss another important matter. The House and the country are sick and tired of hearing the Prime Minister and other Ministers repeat ad nauseam how important it is for everybody to obey the rule of law. Of

course, we all accept that. Or do we? The law says that companies must file their annual accounts with the Companies Registration Office. At the very time when the Prime Minister was hectoring others and preaching about the need to obey the law, her son was disobeying it. Only the threat of prosecution caused him to comply with the law. The weekend's newspapers revealed that only the threat of prosecution compelled Mark Thatcher to put in the annual accounts of his company.
Is the Prime Minister so busy hectoring others in the community that she forgets to lecture her own family on the need to obey the law? Not only Mark Thatcher is involved. I have been in contact with the relevant bodies. I have been making inquiries about the Prime Minister's law-abiding friends in the City and in the business world.
Bob Cryer, the hon. Member who lost his Keighley seat at the last election, asked the Minister of State for Trade last year how many companies were disobeying the law. The Minister told him that
on 4 October, there were 402,004 companies in default of their obligations to deliver accounts, and 363,430 in default in respect of annual returns."—[Official Report, 22 October 1982, Vol. 29, c. 237.]
The Minister added that because of that refusal to obey the law by his friends—he did not use those words, but that is the implication, because those companies are the Tory party's friends—30 temporary clerks had been recruited to deal with the law-breakers. It is clear that the recruitment of those 30 clerks has not led to any success. The latest figures show that 383,682 companies are still breaking the law by being in default of their obligation to deliver their accounts and that 350,044 are in default in respect of their annual returns.
May we have an assurance that when the Prime Minister or any other Minister lectures trade unions or anybody else about the importance of obeying the law their speeches will be directed to the hundred of thousands of law-breakers in the City who break company law every year? I hope that they will balance their speeches a little more in the future than they have done in the past. Everyone must obey the law, but these hundreds of thousands of companies are regularly in default. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind in future statements on these matters.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Hon. Members have been putting important issues before the House. That which I wish briefly to put before the House is a fundamental constitutional issue and I believe that it would be inappropriate for the House to adjourn before this matter has been properly addressed.
One of the most important, if not the most important, powers and rights possessed by the House from time virtually immemorial—if my history is correct I think that it is one of the most significant matters with which Simon de Montfort was concerned—is the control of this House over the taxation of our peoples. Last week, this was severely threatened, if not overruled.
In our relationships with the European Community there are, of course, funds which flow to and from ourselves and the Community. But they flow on the basis of agreements entered into by the House. The Community's own resources are made up of a calculated 1 per cent. of VAT revenues, of import duties and of levies on agricultural produce. It has been agreed in advance by


the House that the Community can have money up to that value and worth. The expenditure of that money is agreed by the Council of Ministers. Our Ministers are there and participate in that agreement on a year-by-year basis. Our Ministers are able, if they so wish, to veto any particular arrangement, and our Ministers are accountable to the House.
Last week, in a move, I believe, of contended legality, the European Assembly at Strasbourg saw fit to visit taxation on the peoples of this country by withholding money which it had been agreed that we should receive, which is rightfully ours and which has been agreed by the constitutional processes of the European Community to the extent of some £457 million. The European Assembly in effect sought to tax every single member of every single family in the United Kingdom to the extent of some £8 to £9. This is a serious and fundamental constitutional issue and I believe that the House would be wrong to adjourn before the matter has been properly addressed.
The institution of the European Assembly is made up of contingents from the various Community countries. What in effect has happened is that the majority of foreigners in that Assembly have decided against the representatives of the United Kingdom to visit this penalty on the people of the United Kingdom. They have voted —their intention is that we should pay. I cannot be too forthright in my condemnation of such activity.
The Assembly had three choices available to it. It could have let the budget go as it was. It could have thrown the whole Budget out. Wherever one stands on the spectrum of British association with the other countries of the European Community, there is a case for throwing the whole budget out. There are problems in the Community. We are combined and arranged on a selection of policies, some of which are wrong, where we do not have common interests. The common agricultural policy is a scandal. It is distorting the European Community. The budgetary system is a scandal and is distorting the European Community. There is a fair argument for throwing out the whole budget to create an impasse with regard to all these burdens which are weighing down the Community and preventing positive agreed policies from going forward.
There is a real purpose in throwing out the budget, in bringing about a crisis and allowing us to sit down and settle our disputes and come together on common policies. That was not the course that the Assembly took. Instead, it decided to victimise and pick on the Federal German Republic and ourselves. It was a cowardly act; it was an unnecessary act; it was a damaging act; and it was an act about which we in the House must urgently do something.
I know that the Government, quite rightly, put great store on legality. I entirely agree with that. I am not suggesting that we should do anything illegal, but what I do suggest is that we should, without delay, pass a Bill which would enable this House, should the Government feel the time was due, and should the circumstances make it necessary, to withhold future contributions from the European Community. In that way we would be enabled to retrieve and retain our £457 million of taxation which the Assembly attempted to visit on us last week.
We decide taxation here. If ever we should agree not to decide taxation here, we will have forsaken our control and our sovereignty. It is fundamental that we restore that power without delay. We should not break Community law or do that which is illegal until such time as money

which is rightfully ours is taken from us, and then, with the power at the Government's immediate disposal, that action should be taken immediately.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: It would be wholly inappropriate for the House to adjourn without hearing a ministerial statement on an announcement made about two hours ago of the cancellation by Britoil of a contract with Scott Lithgow Ltd. for a semi-submersible drilling rig. I believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland is at this moment taking part in a television interview in Scotland about this dreadful announcement by Britoil. The right hon. Gentleman should be here with his colleagues from the Department of Industry to give us the Government's views on the effect of the failure to negotiate an acceptable contract. I made a decision to be here so that I could raise this matter with Ministers and with right hon. and hon. Members.
The cancellation of the order brings Scott Lithgow, an old shipbuilding firm, to the brink of disaster. I do not think that by saying that I am indulging in hyperbole. It is a disaster for Scott Lithgow and a disaster for the community. I sincerely believe that the decision should be reversed. The closure of the yard would have a devastating impact on Greenock and Port Glasgow, proud towns with a proud history in shipbuilding and marine engineering.
It would be a tragedy also for the United Kingdom to lose this reservoir of skills in offshore technology —technology that has a growing future for both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be nothing less than a lamentable admission of failure and a national humiliation if Britoil were to get away with this and then go to south-east Asia for a replacement rig. The rig at Scott Lithgow is now 30 per cent. under way. It is nonsense to claim that Ministers have no power to influence the events surrounding this decision. The state owns 48 per cent. of Britoil, and British Shipbuilders, as a nationalised industry, has its external financing limits set by Ministers. Its deficit is funded by the Exchequer. The state, in the form of the Government, can play a major role.
This crisis cannot be shrugged off. At the least, the Secretary of State for Scotland and his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry should call the twc sides together, discover why negotiations have failed and get the parties talking again. If Government help is needed to take the financial strain, Ministers should make it clear that such help will be available. If heads must be knocked together or chief executives called back from their Christmas holidays, so be it. The alternative is unthinkable.
More than 4,000 jobs are at risk and the knock-on effect would devastate the whole area. Indeed, the knock-on effect would go beyond the lower Clyde and even beyond the Strathclyde region. Not only is Scott Lithgow a major employer but it is a major purchaser of goods and services outwith Inverclyde. For example, in 1982–83, in direct purchases from suppliers, Scott Lithgow spent £67 million, 56 per cent. of it in the Strathclyde region.
Its importance goes further, however — throughout mainland Scotland. If 4,000 jobs were lost at Scott Lithgow, that figure could be doubled in terms of ancillary industries and major suppliers. If the yard were to close, the economic and social effects on the local community would be devastating. Male unemployment now stands


slightly in excess of 20 per cent. In Port Glasgow, one-third of the community is dependent, directly or indirectly, on social security income. The closure of Scott Lithgow would in itself increase the unemployment figure of the area from its present 20 per cent. to about 40 per cent.
There is no need for this community to suffer such a catastrophic event. The Scott Lithgow work force has been badly maligned by the media, and by others who should know better, in terms of its industrial relations record. The time is past for squabbling over past incidents. The Scott Lithgow work force today is, as it has been always, a mature group of people capable of producing technologically advanced offshore engineering structures. Inverclyde, Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole cannot afford to put that work force into the dole queue.
I hope that a ministerial statement will be made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or by the Secretary of State for Scotland about this tragic turn of events. Renegotiation is essential. Scott Lithgow cannot be allowed to disappear, not only because of its importance as a major employer but because of its importance to the continuing development of the United Kingdom's offshore engineering industry.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: It was a curious experience for me to return yesterday from the crisis-ridden middle east to the Harrods bombing in which, among others, Phillip Geddes, a friend of my family, was killed. The House must not adjourn until the Leader of the House gives an assurance of a full debate on the Northern Ireland situation on our return in which English, Scottish and Welsh hon. Members can take their full part.
The policy, the alternatives, relations with the Republic, the fight against terrorism, the Northern Ireland economy and society and the future are as much the responsibility and concern of hon. Members who do not represent Northern Ireland constituencies as they are of those who do. Our debates on Northern Ireland usually take place at a late hour, are notoriously parochial and are bitter and utterly unconstructive. There is no future in continuing like that.
The voice of the representatives of the other people of Britain must now be heard. We owe at least that to those who have suffered and are suffering and others who may suffer in the future. Let the House of Commons as a whole debate the matter, give its judgment and exert its influence.

Mr. Michael McGuire: One matter that I wish to raise before the House adjourns for Christmas concerns last week's statement about regional policy. As an hon. Member who represents a north-west constituency, I put a question—the Leader of the House may be aware of it, because I think that he was present at the time—to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry following last Tuesday's statement. I referred to the disadvantage at which the north-west region finds itself—a disadvantage that will be perpetuated—and I have since obtained figures to supplement what I said then.
I pointed out that under the new proposals, as outlined in the White Paper, there would be no regional agencies in the English regions. The north-west has about the same

population as Scotland and Wales combined. The Scottish development agency in 1983–84 received £93 million of public money to help it do its job, which is to attract industry to Scotland. The Welsh development agency received £49 million. But NWIDA—which is, so to speak, a poor equivalent because it is not a development agency; it is an association in the north-west—received £260,000.
I have no doubt that my colleagues from the northern and other regions will speak of the disparity affecting their regions. I am not competent to speak on their behalf, nor do I wish to do so. As I see present many of my distinguished colleagues from those areas, I shall leave it to them to deal with that matter should they be fortunate enough to be called to speak in the debate.
It is not true to say that the purpose of these agencies—I include such organisations as NWIDA—is to fight for jobs in the United Kingdom. That just achieves the shifting around of jobs from one region to another, with the regions that get them boasting about it and those that lose them lamenting their loss. The Scottish and Welsh development agencies, with huge funds at their disposal compared with NWIDA, can mount successful campaigns overseas. They can properly boast about their efforts in that respect and take full-page advertisements in the national newspapers explaining how firms in the new technologies are developing in Scotland, and I do not complain. They can rightly boast about their achievements.
My complaint is that the north-west region is disadvantaged because we cannot mount such campaigns. We do not want to pinch jobs from other regions. We want the resources at our command to mount similar campaigns overseas to bring jobs to our region. Apart from sporadic missions that go from our region once or twice a year to foreign parts—they are not well-funded and they do the best that they can—we lack the ability to launch the sort of drives in which we need to engage. If we had the funds, we, too, could go to Japan, America, Canada and elsewhere to bring jobs to the north-west.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McGuire: No, I will not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me lacking in Christmas spirit, but this is a short debate and I do not want to lengthen it. I normally give way to interventions, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
I represent a constituency within the Wigan area. We have about 20 per cent. male unemployment. No one knows how much female unemployment there is, because many women do not bother to register. The Labour party has a programme for putting many people back to work, but we shall never return to full employment. Neither the present Government nor my party believe that there is any magic wand to be waved. We can argue about the number of people that we can get back to work, but we know that there will be no return to full employment.
Employment prospects must not continue to be a lottery. The other week, I talked to a young person who had secured a job. She had had a university education. She told me that when she went to sign on for the last time, to get the documentation which all young people starting work need, the room had been full of other young people who were filled with despair and hopelessness. "They are


not all layabouts or deadbeats," she said to me. "They simply want a chance." Some of those young people have been out of a job for three or four years, and their prospects of getting a job and gaining some experience are receding all the time. We are still losing about 20,000 jobs a month and adding them to the unofficial unemployment total, which I believe to be about 4 million. We must rethink the system. At present, it is simply a lottery: some will get a job, and others will not.
There is supposed to be a think tank. I hope that that think tank will think up some ways of tackling this great scourge. Some of our constituents have suffered from the cruel lash of unemployment for 18 months or two years and have no prospect of a job. No Christmas message that we can send them will relieve them of the deep foreboding that things will be no better next Christmas and that they may be worse. We have a duty to think about that problem. Some other countries are doing so. The West Germans are considering how to adjust the retirement age.
I do not pretend to have any solutions. I ask only that people with better brains than mine and with more resources — people who appreciate the demographic position and who understand what the real prospects are, economically and otherwise, for the next few years—should think about it. We cannot tackle the problem by creating a few jobs here and a few jobs there. We need a massive re-think. I hope that the Government can reassure me that their thoughts are tending in the same direction. I hope that they can offer our young people some hope.
Recently, one of my constituents brought to me a problem which I did not believe could exist. He came to one of my constituency interviews about a fortnight ago. He is drawing unemployment benefit and he told me that his wife has a weekly pension of the magnificent sum of 51p. The man would have been a couple of years away to retirement when, very recently, he was made redundant. He has not yet recovered from the shock. He knows that he has no hope of getting a job.
He told me that his wife's 51p is deducted from his unemployment benefit and that what rubs salt into the wound is the fact that, for administrative purposes, his wife's pension is only given to her annually, but he loses 51p every week. I did not believe him. Sometimes, constituents get the facts rather muddled. However, I told him that I would make inquiries. I did so, and the reply that I received confirmed that what my constituent had told me was true.
I hope that the Leader of the House will pass on the message to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister rejoices in the sobriquet of the Iron Lady, and my hon. Friends and I believe her to be an iron lady with an iron heart. To humiliate a man on unemployment benefit in this way is not just laughable in a curious way, it is obscene. It should not happen. The 51p should not be taken into account. No pension not exceeding, say, £5 a week should be taken into account. To take into account a pension of 51p, paid annually, is not good enough. If the Leader of the House cannot tell me that that position will be altered soon, I hope that he will convey to those responsible that this is obscene nonsense. The sooner we get rid of it, the better. Furthermore, I hope that we shall soon be given a statement that any pension of less than £4 or £5 a week will not be taken into account in this ridiculous way.
I hope that the Government will respond to my speech in the way that people of this country would wish.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am sure that every hon. Member in the House shares the deep concern of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) about unemployment throughout the country and about the needs of pensioners, but I hope that I will be forgiven for not speaking again on those subjects.
This is the season of good will and I hope that before we rise for the recess the Government will offer a little good will towards Chile. No doubt my suggestion will set off a spontaneous reaction of apoplexy in some Opposition Members, because the international Left has never forgiven the army for bringing down the Marxist Allende, and the Left's endless capacity for self-delusion has prevented it from understanding why that happened. It happened because Marxism has never worked in practice in government, because Marxism was destroying Chile, and the Chilean people besought the army to put an end to it.
I have recently returned from a visit to Chile with the Bow Group, at the invitation and as the guest of the university of Chile.

Mr. Winnick: Who paid for the hon. and learned Gentleman's trip?

Mr. Lawrence: First-hand observation, as opposed to the Tea Room chair observation of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), suggests that things are getting better in Chile. There is an atmosphere of greater freedom.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lawrence: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken too much this Session. There are serious human rights violations, but they are decreasing, and democracy is in the air. I ask the Government to do what they can to encourage that progress and to assure us now that they will do so.
The Bow Group was invited, apparently, because the Government of Chile are reaching out to find friends in Europe in the run-up to their return to democracy. We were not brainwashed. Our reception was, frankly, surprising. We were given every opportunity over a 10-day visit to meet and question not just General Pinochet and his Right-wing regime but everyone in non-terrorist political life who is strongly opposed to the regime. We saw the main political opposition and trade union leaders, Left-wing academics, the editorial staff of Left-wing political journals, human rights activist organisations and even displaced and jobless people in their temporary camps who are from time to time the target of police repression. In what Communist dictatorship would such freedom be allowed to us?
Chile is a long way from Europe. Few Europeans go to learn the facts. Stories about Chile tend to be exaggerated and such improvements as there have been tend to be ignored. Of course, there has been considerable bloodshed, torture, police repression and censorship. There always is with the dictatorships. But the worst estimate of the numbers of those who died in the coup 10 years ago and after hardly registers on the counter of man's bestiality to man compared with the millions slaughtered under Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, in Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Ethiopia and goodness knows where else where the iron curtain dominates the scene.

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: We have forgotten that all the democratic political parties on the Left and Right invited the army to take over. Where has such a genuine invitation from the whole spectrum of political views ever taken place in a Communist coup?
Chile still does not have complete press freedom, but the several television channels, newspapers and periodicals were free to publish our doubts and criticisms, as they daily publish the speeches of political leaders against the Pinochet regime. Torture, deplorably, still continues. It is probably endemic in South America. One reason for that is that the civil courts have little or no effective control over the military. Even then, the Archbishop of Santiago and human rights agencies told us of about 30 to 60 cases currently causing anxiety, which, although appalling, was nothing like the figures which we were expecting when we arrived.
Although internal and external exiles have been increasing, President Pinochet has allowed 2,000 to return home and there have been no disappearances since 1977. Last month, for the first time, a judge in Valparaiso took action against illegal detentions and Chilean lawyers began to speak out publicly on certain civil and human rights abuses.
After months of regular demonstrations against the constitution, which promises democracy by 1989—although it keeps President Pinochet in power until then—and 40 deaths at those demonstrations, the latest demonstration of 250,000 people passed off without military repression or serious disturbance. The thaw is undoubtedly beginning to spread.
The difficulty about a return to democracy is that there are 62 political groupings and the political parties in Chile seem, unfortunately, to be in confusion and disarray. Also, President Pinochet is backed by a traditionally loyal, well-disciplined and powerful army. He can, I believe, also count on the support of the majority of an unusually large middle class, as a 67 per cent. backing for his constitution shows. Despite their economic problems, women and business men fear instability above all else. In such circumstances, democracy may be a little longer returning than any Democrat would wish, which is why any help that the British Government can give would be greatly welcomed.
Anyone who speaks well of Chile is likely to be accused of being an apologist for the regime, which I am not, but if there is any improvement these things should be said.
Argentina has just returned to democracy, and I hope that its human rights abuses, which were worse than those of Chile, will have ceased. It provides an example to Chile on its own doorstep. The provision of arms from the United States to Argentina will make the Chilean Government want the same facilities, which will possibly be made available to them only if there is a dramatic improvement in human rights.
Chile has acute economic problems, but British business men there seem optimistic. If we in Great Britain were to take off our blinkers, we might be able to help Chile with the extra private investment necessary to help stabilise and develop its economy. By a revival of our historic friendship with Chile, whose founder was called O'Higgins, whose navy was created by Lord Cochrane, and whose generals even today bear such names as Sinclair and Gordon, we might be able to encourage the restoration

of human rights and help speed the return to democracy which Chile enjoyed for 175 years. In the last resort, Chile is a bulwark against the spread of Communism in a vulnerable continent. We cannot afford to forget that.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I wish to raise again the subject of the Severn bridge and express my disappointment and concern that there has been no statement about such a vital issue before the Christmas recess. It illustrates yet again that the Secretary of State for Transport fails to grasp the importance of the issue. During an Adjournment debate on 28 October I revealed how lax the Department of Transport had been about this serious matter.
I quoted then large sections of the Mott, Hay and Anderson report and independent assessment, which was written in language that ordinary people could understand. The report was about the bridge's substructure and revealed a serious position. Husband and Company has been commissioned by the Flint and Neill partnership, through the Department of Transport, to assess the bridge's substructure. On 7 November the Secretary of State said that a summary of the report had been placed in the Library. That took the form of a one-page letter dated 10 November to the Flint and Neill partnership and pointed to certain difficulties with the substructure. What about the full report? Why is there a delay in publishing it? One does not wish to impugn anyone's integrity, but the delay can only arouse suspicion about what is happening.
I wish to deal with the maintenance of the bridge. A major resurfacing problem will arise which will have to be tackled one day. One finds from talking to road engineers that the resurfacing of a bridge of the Severn design is one of the hardest that they could be given. The reasons for that have been given to me on good authority. First, the tolerance and bridge strength are so fine that the thickness and weight of the road surface material is critical. An extra few millimetres of thickness would impose many extra tonnes on the hangers and cause major safety problems. It is impossible to resurface by putting a new layer of material on to the existing road surface. The surface has to be stripped and a new surface laid. That means closures for long periods. That has serious implications. And I wonder whether that aspect has been considered by the Secretary of State.
There is a danger that that process could damage the bridge's structure because of its design. The road is laid on the upper deck plate direct and therefore scrubbing it off can weaken the deck plate and the bridge. Secondly, the material used to surface the bridge must be exceptionally strong and durable because the thickness of the material must be kept to a minimum. The material also has to be exceptionally flexible because the bridge expands and contracts with the temperature more than other road surfaces and because it flexes with traffic much more than rigid roads.
Thirdly, the material must be exceptionally weather-resistant. The major damage to roads is caused by the freeze-thaw cycle, in which ice forms in cracks in the road surface and forces small fissures open and thaws wash out small pieces of dislodged surface material. The cycle affects all roads but normally is worse on the surface. The substrata are less affected because of the natural insulation of the ground. Frost rarely penetrates more than a few


millimetres. However, on the Severn bridge and other similar bridges, frost is more of a problem because the road freezes from above and below because the cold air circulates around the bridge.
That means that the road material not only freezes thoughout but also freezes more frequently, because even a relatively short cold snap can freeze the road more fully when it is surrounded top and bottom by air than when most of it is buried in the ground. Furthermore, the exposed nature of a cross-water bridge high in the air makes it more subject to icy wind than surfaces at ground level and, therefore, more prone to freezing conditions.
The road surface on the bridge is the original one, made in 1966. It has been extensively patched and repaired and has been rutted many times. It cannot last for ever. I have no evidence of a contract to renew the road surface of the bridge. I can only ask again whether the Secretary of State is aware of the serious problem, because when such an operation is eventually decided upon it could have serious implications.
Another vexed question is tolls. On 20 September, the Minister of State, Department of Transport proposed that tolls on cars should rise from 20p to 50p and on buses and lorries from 40p to £1—an increase of no less than 150 per cent. Under the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965, a proposed increase must be advertised either in the London Gazette or in the local press. Six weeks are allowed for objections and then a public inquiry can be held if a representative objector or a local authority wishes it. In this case Gwent county council has decided to object and an inquiry is to be held.
Tolls are an irksome obligation on motorists and cause horrendous queues at peak periods. This year, drivers' contributions in motoring taxation have burst the £10,000 million barrier. Tolls on top of that are highway robbery. Even more significant, this is a pointless exercise. The debt on major bridges and other estuarial crossings now totals £450 million, whereas their initial construction cost, including that of the Humber bridge, was only £260 million. Over £200 million has already been collected in tolls. This year, the extra £300 million which the Chancellor is taking from the motorist would go a long way to repay outstanding debts.
The immediate impetus for the proposed increase was repair work, which was estimated at the time to cost £33 million.
The fact that a relatively new bridge should need such extensive work so early in its life means that someone got it wrong. There must have been faults in design, in construction and certainly in the estimating of traffic flows. Why should the motorist pay for those mistakes? Parliament never contemplated imposing such penalties on law-abiding motorists—people who are already paying hand over fist for the privilege of driving. In view now of the extenuating circumstances relating to the bridge, I should have thought that tolls would be not increased but scrapped.
The position was summed up for me by Mrs. Shelagh Salter, chairman of the Welsh consumer council, in a letter to the South Wales Argus in the middle of last month. She said:
Welsh consumers pay every day and have been paying every day, for the past 16 years, to 'buy' the Severn Bridge. Yet have consumers got value for money? The Welsh Consumer Council says No. If the Sale of Goods Act applied to the Severn Bridge we would be entitled to get our money back. It's neither fit for the purpose, nor of merchantable quality.

The Secretary of State should take heed of those words.
The fact that the Secretary of State does not propose to make a statement on the Severn bridge is a dereliction of duty. He should have ensured that the Husband report was published before the Christmas recess, and he should have sought powers to scrap tolls on the bridge. Good reasons are available for that. Above all, he should have put forward plans for a second crossing. I am well aware that imaginative plans are available to him. On 28 November the CBI in Wales held a highly successful conference on this important subject, where unanimity of purpose was displayed, but regrettably no Department of Transport representative was present. On 9 January 1984 Gwent county council will hold a similar conference, to which the Secretary of State is invited. I hope that he will accept the invitation and see for himself the strength of feeling on this matter.
The Secretary of State is a brilliant watercolour artist, and he often portrays bridges. I mention this now to urge upon him the fact that on 'the border of Wales we need a second crossing of the Severn without further delay.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: I am glad that I was able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I believe that the House should consider the problem in Cyprus before the Christmas recess. One must examine the history of the problem before one makes a judgment about the recent declaration of independence by President Denktash on behalf of the Turkish community in northern Cyprus.
Since 1957—and even long before then—it has been the aim of the Greek community in Cyprus and of successive Greek Governments to achieve enosis or union between Greece and Cyprus. The EOKA movement—the terrorist movement—that began in 1957 was not an independence movement but a terrorist campaign directed towards achieving the union of Cyprus with Greece.
Two communities live on the island of Cyprus—the Turkish community and the Greek community. In the whole of its history Cyprus has never been an independent nation state. It has been part of the Venetian empire, the Byzantine empire, the Ottoman empire and the British empire, amongst others. Throughout the period from 1957 to date the Turkish community has rightly been concerned at the prospect of union with Greece. It is my view, reinforced when I visited Cyprus as a guest of the Turkish-Cypriot Government this summer, that the root cause of the problems of that troubled island stem from that fact.
The 1960 constitution of Cyprus, negotiated under the auspices of the United Kingdom Government, the Greek Government and the Turkish Government, provided for safeguards for the Turkish community. In 1963 Archbishop Makarios and his Government officers unilaterally tore up the constitution and withdrew from the Turkish community its rights and representation in the legislature—in effect, safeguards and rights under the constitution in respect of taxation and various other matters. From 1963 to 1974 the Turkish community was subject to oppression, economic embargo and a denial of human rights, about which Opposition Members who frequently profess the rights of the individual and natural justice should know. If they do not, they should be ashamed.
In 1974 Mr. Nicos Sampson, who was formerly deputy shotgun rider for Grivas the EOKA leader, overthrew


President Makarios, who went to the United Nations and complained at the actions of the Greek junta in fostering that coup d'etat on the island of Cyprus. The prospect of a murderer such as Nicos Sampson being let loose on the Turkish community was horrific. One of the most articulate men on the international scene in those days, Dr. Bulent Ecevit, the Prime Minister of Turkey, came to this country and begged the then Foreign Secretary to intervene, using the rights of guarantee that Britain had as a guarantor power of that constitution. Britain declined to intervene. The Turkish army intervened and probably saved the lives of a considerable number of the Turkish population of more than 180,000 in Cyprus.
From 1974 to date, one person has been killed in border incidents along the green line between northern and southern Cyprus. If one asks the Turks, who are going through the most extreme economic deprivation, what they think of their situation, they say that they are alive, that they have freedom under the law and that they have the right to elect their own representatives.
It is unsatisfactory that our Foreign Secretary, who stands at the Dispatch Box and speaks with all the authority and weight of a British Foreign Secretary in the international forum, should deplore the declaration of independence of President Denktash. From 1974 to date, negotiations have taken place in an attempt to resolve the issues. The Turks require freedom, security and the right to life itself. The Turks have proposed a bi-communal, bizonal federated state. Under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General, soundings were drawn up, which were issued in September and which produced a framework in which negotiations could take place. These soundings recognised the principles which the Turks were trying to establish. The Greek-Cypriot Foreign Secretary Rolandis resigned as a result of President Kyprianou's failure to negotiate within those soundings. As night is bound to follow day, a declaration of independence then took place.
International pressure has been exercised by the Western countries to prevent any other nation, whether Pakistan, Bangladesh or any of the Moslem middle east states, from recognising Turkish Cyprus. In my respectful submission, the conduct by our Foreign Secretary in his response to the Turkish community's problems was deplorable. The reason is that there are wider issues at stake, which are known to the Foreign Office, such as sovereign bases on Cyprus, Cyprus's strategic position, facing Lebanon, 40 miles south of Turkey and adjacent to Syria, the desire not to antagonise the Greek lobby and Greece's important position in the European Community.
I remind the House that the Republic of Turkey has faced west for 60 years since 1923. A critical situation exists in the eastern Mediterranean. Many of the Aegean islands have been militarised. There is a claim by the Greeks to a 12-mile territorial zone around those islands, which the Turkish Republic has said, if declared, will be considered a casus belli by Turkey. Turkey has a large Aegean army based on Izmir. Cyprus could be a flashpoint in the middle east. It behoves the British Foreign Secretary and the Government to adopt a more even-handed approach to the problems of Cyprus and of Turkish Cypriots.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Like nearly every hon. Member, I suffer from mild schizophrenia. It is never so apparent as when we approach a recess. On the one hand, hon. Members are more than ready for a break from their heavy responsibilities, yet, on the other hand, they plead that they should not go away at all so that an important matter may be discussed.
I raise the matter that I wish to discuss on the basis of Standing Order No. 10. It is not right for an hon. Member to enter the debate unless the matter is urgent and important and unless action on it would be possible should the House decide not to rise on Thursday. I plead for 1,800 people who are unnecessarily suffering pain and will have a bad Christmas. If I thought that the Leader of the House would give time for a debate, I should be only too pleased to come to the House on Christmas day, Boxing day and the next day to fight this cause.
The House will know that I am interested and have always been very much involved in the National Health Service. In consequence, I have made many speeches on the cuts that have been made. I should like to make many more such speeches, in the hope that the Government will change their mind. I shall not do so now, as I shall have other opportunities.
On this matter, money is not being withheld. The Brent health authority has lost £250,000. Some 300 staff, including many nurses, are fighting to retain their jobs. Even if we meet on Christmas day, we shall not be able to solve those problems immediately. However, we could solve this problem.
Last April the North West Thames regional health authority designated £1·2 million capital expenditure for one of the finest hospitals in London — the Central Middlesex hospital in my constituency. The expenditure was to be used to refurbish four wards. The reason for refurbishment is that the hospital building began its life as the North-West London workhouse. It has taken many years to get the hospital into its present condition to provide services. The closure of the four wards means that about 1,800 of my constituents are awaiting admission.
The Minister frequently tells the House that the Government are spending more money on the NHS. However, all hon. Members face the same problem. According to national statistics, the NHS is doing marvellously well, but when hon. Members examine the position in their constituencies, they discover problems. The 1,634 persons awaiting admission to the Central Middlesex hospital can be broken down into 140 cases of general surgery, 249 ear, nose and throat, 243 traumatic and orthopaedic, 242 ophthalmology, 377 urology, 236 dental surgery and 147 gynaecology.
My constituency is also affected by the closure of Wembley hospital, which has served my constituents for a century. In a few weeks' time the casualty department will close. To open the remaining wards in the new year will be a struggle. The allocation of money to the hospital has been withheld for nine months. The money could be released if the Minister for Social Security spoke to the relevant person. That is my plea. Will the Leader of the House speak to the Minister or the Secretary of State about the matter? We are dealing not with cuts but with money already allocated and not given. Hospitals are being divided against each other. Medical staff are saying that if one ward is closed, perhaps another will remain open.
I received a letter from the chairman of the hospital medical staff committee of the Brent health authority, stating:
The consultant medical staff are united in their view that there is an urgent need to increase the number of beds available … Already the duty medical and surgical registrars are under great pressure to conserve emergency beds and the risk that a patient will be sent home who should have been admitted is very real.
The risk will increase as the winter proceeds.
In addition to the problem of emergency admissions, the other major consequence of having insufficient beds to cope with the work load is that the waiting list for non-emergency surgical cases is increasing. In the period from December 1982 to September 1983 the waiting list has risen from 1,634 to 1,939. Patients are being sent for from the waiting list in good faith and are then refused
because there is no room at the inn.
This happened to no fewer than 500 patients in a three-month period during the summer. There is a real risk".
Now that the winter is setting in, should an epidemic occur, the hospital would be in an emergency red-light situation.
The money should be released and the wards opened. The skills exist to do the work. Yet, during the Christmas period, about 1,800 people, who are suffering pain and needing urgent treatment, will continue to suffer as a result of a bureaucratic device whereby money allocated in April has not been received by December.
I hope that the Leader of the House will convey with the utmost urgency the message that this matter should not wait for the House to resume its business after the recess. I urge the Minister to pick up the phone and contact the regional health authority chairman, Dame Betty Paterson. My constituents will then have the best Christmas present that they could receive.

Mr. David Winnick: I wish to raise a local and a national matter. However, first I want to deal with the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who defended the regime in Chile. His speech reflected no credit on himself or on the House. I become nauseated when I hear hon. Members trying to find some justification for dictatorships, especially when it is such a repressive dictatorship as in Chile. I can imagine the reaction on the Conservative Benches to a speech about Poland. The hon. and learned Member for Burton made an extremely unfortunate speech.
I, like my hon. Friends, remember what happened earlier in the year when the Chilean authorities reacted in such a ferocious way to demonstrations. Many people were killed, including children. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. and learned Gentleman can have a good word to say for the notorious and brutal regime in Chile. I do not wish to be personal, but it is relevant to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman who paid for his trip to Chile. Was it paid for by the Chilean authorities? The hon. and learned Gentleman has, I think, an obligation to tell us.
The local matter to which I wish to refer involves the decision by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to accept the recommendation of the National Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education that the diversified courses at the West Midlands college of higher education should come to an end.
The decision will undoubtedly come as a heavy blow in the area. On 8 November a deputation from Walsall and

Sandwell council met the Under-Secretary of State at the Department to argue and plead for the courses to be retained. The college is highly thought of in the area and has won much praise for its work by Her Majesty's inspectors and the Council for National and Academic Awards. Honours status was granted to the three diversified courses.
Walsall has no tradition of pupils entering higher education, and a major breakthrough began with the opening of the West Midlands college. A growing number of sixth-formers and potential mature students could have their needs met locally. The deputation on 8 November explained that the likelihood was that several of those who would find places at the local college might be unable to attend at other colleges in the west midlands.
The college has two main areas of work—teacher training and diversified courses. The obvious danger, as we explained to the Minister, is that without the diversified courses, which are coming to an end, it might he argued that the teacher-training course should also cease, the result being that the college will be closed. The college has an excellent record of endeavour, achievement and flexibility. It has a major role to play in the provision of higher education in Walsall and Sandwell.
The latest development, apart from the decision of the Secretary of State, is that the director of education for Walsall has written to the Secretary of State about proposals for a federation between the colleges of Walsall and Sandwell. The director has put it to the Secretary of State that the decision involving the West Midlands college should be deferred so that firm proposals can be made by the two boroughs. I plead for such a decision. I shall write to the Secretary of State enclosing my remarks. I shall also send him copies of the letters that I received today from the director of education.
The other matter that should be dealt with before the House rises is of a more national character. It concerns the possibility that electricity prices will rise early next year — and we already know that gas prices will be increased. Any increase in gas and electricity prices will cause great hardship throughout the country. Even those on average incomes must often face some difficulties with fuel bills. If, for example, some members of the household are at home during the day, they will need to keep the heat turned on in cold weather. Such families will not find it easy to meet their fuel bills at the end of each quarter.
The position is so much more difficult for those on limited incomes and supplementary benefit and the unemployed. There is a great deal of fuel poverty in Britain. The House has been told on many occasions that many elderly people deliberately do not turn on their heating during the day, despite the cold, because they are terrified that they will not be able to meet their fuel bills. It is possible that some elderly people may die, arid we know of the number of cases of hypothermia during the winter months.
Information that I was given last month shows that the increase in retail prices since the Government took office is almost 58 per cent. However, a different picture emerges on increases in fuel prices. During the same period gas prices have risen by over 112 per cent. and electricity prices by 82·5 per cent. That is why so many people are finding it difficult adequately to heat their homes.
The Government's argument, so often reiterated from the Dispatch Box, is that some assistance is available. I


accept that that is true in some cases—for example, for those on supplementary benefit—but it is not generous assistance, and others not in receipt of supplementary benefit, but on limited incomes, receive no assistance at all. Two million pensioners receive rent or rate rebates — or both — because of their limited incomes, but because they are not in receipt of supplementary benefit they do not receive a single penny in assistance with their fuel bills.
The defeat in the Cabinet of the wish of the Secretary of State for Energy that there should be no increase in electricity prices will cause a great deal of hardship for electricity users. We must remember what I have just said about the increase in gas prices and the profits that have been made. It is difficult to see any justification for further increases in the price of gas during the next six, 12 or 18 months.
I hope that the Cabinet will think again and recognise the amount of acute hardship that will be caused to so many who cannot afford to heat their homes adequately. If, at the end of the day, the increases go ahead, the Government have a duty to ensure that those who cannot afford them are properly protected. I again remind Ministers that those who do not receive supplementary benefit do not receive assistance with their fuel bills in winter, no matter how small their income.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: As I listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I reminded myself of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy during Question Time this afternoon. He pointed out that the possible increase in electricity prices will mean an increase of 2 per cent. over two years rather than the increases every six weeks under the Labour Government. I know that that took place before 1979, so the hon. Member for Walsall, North was not in the House and is perhaps unaware of the figures. However, I hope that he listened to my right hon. Friend's remarks this afternoon.
Whatever the arguments, we are discussing whether electricity prices should be increased by 2 per cent. over two years. That is a sign of success, which should be welcomed by all hon. Members. We have moved away from the days when the discussions were about increasing prices by 10 per cent. a year. I do not believe that all the credit should go to the Government for that move, but, whatever the disputes and arguments, we are discussing a small increase that will come more than 12 months after the last increase.
I wish to speak briefly about two subjects. First, I want to draw attention to the welcome support given by hon. Members on both sides of the House to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary following his statement this afternoon about the tragic bomb incident at Harrods. I did not mention the Woolwich bomb a week ago because the view of the people in Woolwich is that we should not play into the hands of the IRA and raise every incident in the House. However, it was clearly right to raise the Harrods bomb incident this afternoon.
There was a tragic large-scale loss of life and injury in Knightsbridge on Saturday. I very much welcome the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the House but wish to give special credit to the right hon. Member for

Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for his comments. There are many occasions on which people can give leadership. I hope that, at certain times, my hon. Friends will fall into line with the national mood, even if that means not exploiting a political advantage.
If we again see such disgraceful scenes as those at the Brent council or outside the Stockport Messenger office, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will take a lead from his right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and say openly in the House what he apparently says late at night in a press release that often misses the morning papers —that he condemns such actions.
I shall not try to equate such behaviour with the IRA outrage. I simply try to make a point about the bipartisan way in which the Leader of the Opposition can speak and its effect on the national mood. Such an approach should spread beyond the tragic events of last Saturday.
The second issue concerns Conservative Members and the Government. The rate-capping proposals are important, and I should hesitate to think that my right hon. Friends will take the attitude adopted by some of my hon. Friends who are opposed to them. If county and district councils keep their spending in line and consistent with Government policy, they have nothing to fear from the rate-capping proposals. The councils that risk having their plans interfered with—and their ratepayers who will not benefit from the rate-capping proposals—are the high-spending councils such as the GLC, the ILEA and the London borough of Greenwich.
Opposition Members are opposed to a possible 2 per cent. increase in electricity prices. I remind them and the House of the effects of rate increases. For example, an elderly widow in my constituency, which is part of Greenwich, has had her rates raised from less than £200 a year to more than £600 a year—an increase of £8 a week or more than £400 a year. That has nothing to do with the Government—

Mr. Winnick: Yes, it has.

Mr. Bottomley: I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep quiet for a short time. I did not interrupt his speech, and I hope that he will not interrupt mine.
Last year Greenwich council raised its rate demand by 59 per cent. to finance an increase in spending of less than half that amount. If it had been moderate and increased its spending by only 15 per cent., there would have been no need for any rate increase at all because of the generous way that it would have been treated under the rate support grant settlement. To argue that a 15 per cent. increase in spending is too little is to go totally in the face of reality.
The rate-capping proposals are essential, and many business and domestic ratepayers in my constituency look forward to the time when no council will be able to put such an impost on them that they are hit as badly as they have been by successive increases by the Greater London council, the ILEA and the Greenwich borough council.
I ask the Government to listen courteously to Conservative Members who ask them to think again. I and many of my constituents ask the Government to stay firm and to bring the proposals forward so that ratepayers no longer have to finance the extravagances of high-spending councils.

Mr. Ray Powell: The House should not adjourn but should stay to consider an urgent matter


affecting my constituency of Ogmore. In the Ogmore valley there is only one colliery left—the Wyndham Western colliery, which employs 550 miners and provides employment for about 200 to 300 more people who service that colliery.
For the past 12 months, as the secretary of the Welsh parliamentary Labour party, I have been conducting meetings with Phillip Weeks, with the retired chairman of the National Coal Board, Mr. Siddall, the Council for the Principality, the district councils, the Wales TUC, the Wales CBI and a number of other organisations. In June of this year we negotiated with the Secretary of State for Energy a date for a meeting in July to discuss the crisis in the Welsh coalfields.
It is important for my constituents that we put pressure on the present chairman of the NCB to allow the Wyndham Western colliery to continue in production, to open new seams on the south side of the colliery and to keep both that colliery and the jobs of about 500 miners alive. We want to keep mining in the Ogmore valley alive because it has no other industry and there are no other prospects of work.
In the Port Talbot travel-to-work area, of which the Ogmore constituency is a part, 8,000 people are unemployed, and at the Bridgend jobcentre there are 100 vacancies. If a further 550 miners, plus 200 or 300 more who will also be affected, go on the dole, unemployment in the Ogmore area will rocket from about 18 to about 45 per cent. The House should not adjourn until it has resolved that problem.
Earlier today, at Question Time, the Secretary of State for Energy stated that he wanted to introduce some type of Christmas cheer. I do not know whether he thought about doing that because of the debacle at the weekend in the Cabinet over whether to increase or reduce electricity and gas prices, but I assure him that we want some joy in the valleys of south Wales and some positive action from the Government.
Recently we had a debate on the Coal Industry Bill. It is simplistic for the Government to say that decisions are to be left to the NCB. The NCB operated under directives from the Government on which pits closed and which did not. Previously good procedures in south Wales between the miners and management began to break down as the area failed to get the help and recognition that it needed.
The subject of colliery closures is not new to me. Twelve months ago, on 9 December 1982, I asked for the leave of the House, under Standing Order No. 9—it is now Standing Order No. 10—to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss
a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, 'the decision by the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers delegate conference yesterday to call for strike action on 17 January'."—[Official Report, 9 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 987.]
My request did not receive approval and debate did not take place. The strike also did not take place, for a number of reasons, but the seething anxiety and discontent remained and have grown considerably during the past year.
Since the meeting in July with the Secretary of State for Energy, a new chairman of the NCB has been appointed. I remember reading that Arthur Scargill said that if Ian MacGregor was appointed there would be an escalation of pit closures. He listed a number of collieries on the danger list, and the Wyndham Western colliery in the Ogmore

valley was not on the top of the list but tenth. Since then it has moved up the list, and it is the first colliery to be closed in Wales.
Since 1970, 14,000 jobs have been lost and 16 pits have been closed in Wales. That has created a climate of fear of mass unemployment in the Welsh coalfields. Most of the Welsh coalfields and communities are dependent on the coal industry, and the need for investment is paramount. We suggest that, to help the Welsh miners, trade unions and the TUC, the Minister should look closely at the development as quickly as possible of the new mine at Margam.
Some people in Wales are perturbed when they read articles such as that by Garrod Whatley in the Western Mail of Wednesday 9 November 1983, which said:
South Wales miners say they have evidence that the Government is blocking plans for a new superpit at Margam—so the project can be sold off to private enterprise.
That underlines the Government's neglect in proceeding with the development of the new mine at Margam.
The energy needs of the whole country have been reduced by the Government's actions and policies which have brought massive unemployment throughout the country and created a lesser demand for energy and energy supplies. Emlyn Williams, the president of the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers, said at the last ministerial conference that the local coal industry needed a surgical operation both nationally and in Wales, not the massive butchery that will be introduced by Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to draw attention to the fact that the Department of the Environment is refusing to obey the law and a High Court judgment in relation to regulations to amend the Greater London development plan. That may not seem a matter of momentous public concern, but the Government's refusal to obey the courts after their own pronouncements to trade unionists on the subject in the past month is blatant hypocrisy.
The Greater London development plan was prepared more than a decade ago and for the past two years the, GLC has been trying to make amendments to update it. It now has the support of almost all the London boroughs, the London Boroughs Association and a wide range of commercial, industrial and professional organisations. Until the general election it also had the support of the Department of the Environment. Since the general election, however, the Department has done a U-turn and is now refusing to make the regulations to permit the amendments to the development plan. Incidentally, equivalent regulations exist for local councils elsewhere.
The GLC took the Department to the High Court, before Mr. Justice Hodgson, and on 1 December the Department was roundly defeated. The court had before it the Department's assurance of 15 February 1983 when the Department wrote:
We have Ministerial agreement to the printing of the Alteration Regulations and, as requested, I attach a copy of the current draft. Progress has unfortunately been held up by pressure of work on our lawyers and we are trying to do something about this. However I can assure you that the Regulations will be available when they are needed.


The judge commented that the draft enclosed was "simplicity itself' and that it was difficult to see how any competent draftsman could not have produced it in a matter of hours.
On 2 August the Department informed the GLC:
Ministers have now decided that to give the GLC statutory power to amend the GLDP would, in the present circumstances, be inappropriate.
The Department has now admitted that that letter was written without legal advice and was wrong in law.
The court then heard of the Department's letter of 27 September, which stated that Ministers still considered that regulations should not be made, in the light of their intention to put legislation before Parliament to abolish the GLC on 1 April 1986. They did not consider that the alteration process could be completed by then. They took the view that
an uncompleted and abortive review of the GLDP would be a wasteful extravagance
and that the making of regulations would be seen as encouraging the GLC
to embark on the preparation of proposals".
The judge commented that the use of the word "embark" with reference to a process that had been going on for two years did not inspire confidence in the care with which this important decision was being made.
The judge summed up by saying that Parliament was supreme, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 was an Act of Parliament and until Parliament amended or repealed it, it remained the will of Parliament. The fact that the Executive of the day did not wish to do something that it was required to do by an Act of Parliament was nothing to do with the question. If that Executive, for no other reason than its own political posture, exercised its discretion in a way contrary to the intention of Parliament as expressed in the legislation, the courts could and would intervene.
Since then the GLC has twice written to the Department to get that judgment implemented, but the replies have brought only further delay and a refusal to implement the court's ruling. The Department of the Environment is cocking a snook at the High Court. The Government have been shouting about law and order for the past month, yet they disobey the law themselves. It is like a fire and brimstone preacher being found in a brothel. I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that the Government obey the law and allow the GLC to get on with its planning job.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I shall be very brief. I trust that Members on both sides are appalled at the savage sentences meted out to the Turkish Peace Association executive. I wish to draw attention to an advertisement in the New Statesman for 16 to 23 December, which, under the heading "Turkey's Peace Prisoners", states:
We, the undersigned, are appalled by the savage sentences inflicted upon the executive of the Turkish Peace Association (TPA). Eighteen of the defendants received sentences of eight years' hard labour plus 32 months' internal exile for doing no more than campaign for peace in the same way as CND in Britain. The TPA executive reads like a Who's Who of Turkey's intellectual establishment. The country's best-known lawyers, professors, journalists, painters, poets and former social democratic MPs have been penned up in one cell measuring 20 square metres. Their average age is 50. They have jointly served the Turkish state in top jobs for a total of 406 years. For the

President of the TPA, former ambassador Dikerdem, this is an effective death sentence since he is 68 and suffering from cancer. Turkey is a member of NATO, the Council of Europe and an associate of the EEC. Turkey has signed the European Convention of Human Rights and the UN Declaration.
The signatories to the advertisment include Professor David Beetham, Professor Tom Bottomore, Professor Geraint Parry, Edward P. Thompson, Professor Alan Wilson and Professor Peter Worsley, as well as politicians, represenatives of the peace movement, actors, and so on.
There is nothing dishonourable in fighting for peace in one's country. It is the highest thing that a person can do, but the people who did just that in Turkey are now serving savage prison terms. Recent reports from Turkey tell us that if someone visits a prisoner the only communication allowed is by telephone from the other side of a thick wall with bars and glass and for no more than 15 minutes. Moreover, a prison guard listens in on an extension and if a question is asked which he regards as unsuitable—for example, "What is it like in prison?" — all communication is immediately cut off. That is unacceptable.
The British Government could play a vital role in helping to free those people, as we provide economic and, worst of all, military aid to Turkey. As a matter of urgency, Turkey should be expelled from the Council of Europe and the British Government should cut off all military and economic aid until all members of the Turkish Peace Association executive have been released from gaol.

Mr. Bruce George: I shall speak for no more than 60 seconds. The Government's master plan to create in my constituency the first employment-free zone in the west midlands is proceeding very well. There was a small setback in the past two months, when unemployment fell slightly, but I am sure that things will get back to normal in the near future.
When Conservative Members disappear to wanner climes, perhaps they will spare a thought for the 18 per cent. of my constituents who are now unemployed. The true figure is much higher. The latest body blow is today's announcement that three courses at the West Midlands college are to close. It may be thought that three courses are expendable, but my great anxiety is that in a year's time the Government will review what is left of the college's activities—teacher training—and say that it is no longer viable. In other words, I fear that it is not just a decision to discontinue three very good courses but a notice of extinction for a very good college of higher education.
At a time when we should be expanding higher education to meet the challenges facing this country, it is deplorable that the Government should take such a shortsighted decision. I hope that the Leader of the House will convey my repugnance for the decision to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and that the Secretary of State will now make a decision offering to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) an assurance that teacher training will survive in our area and that this excellent college will not face progressive extinction as a result of today's decision.

Mr. Peter Shore: Anyone who has sat here through most of the afternoon will acknowledge the considerable value of these Adjournment debates. To have crowded no fewer than 22 speeches in rather less than three hours speaks well of the self-discipline of hon. Members and of the pointedness of their remarks. I hope that in the few minutes that I shall allow myself I shall not fall out of line or below the standard of brevity that has been set.
The tone of the debate has been rather sombre. That is not in the least surprising, as it was preceded by the Home Secretary's statement. Several hon. Members, such as the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), whose comments about the statement which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made on behalf of the Opposition I welcome and appreciate, touched on Northern Ireland affairs, the underlying intractable problem of terrorism and the need to find a political and security solution. I shall leave it to the Leader of the House to answer those points.
The other main subjects of debate were also somewhat sombre. For the most part, Conservative Members have spoken about international problems. Some of them offered rather bad advice. I certainly hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not take any notice of the advice to recognise the newly proclaimed independent Turkish state in Cyprus which was recommended by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet).
I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said in a rather squalid speech. I shall help him to refresh his mind as to why most hon. Members strongly object to the events in Chile of 10 years ago. It was the end of what had been one of the few successful democracies in Latin America. Just as most of us rejoiced at the return of democracy in Argentina, we shall look forward to its return in Chile. There is no point in trying to encourage the existing extraordinary repressive regime. If the hon. and learned Member for Burton has any doubt about that, he should examine some of the documents issued by the United Nations Commission on Human rights.

Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Shore: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. I know that he and I are thinking along the same lines on this subject.

Mr. Winnick: It is clear that the Leader of the House is not willing to attack the Chilean regime.

Mr. Shore: I would have hoped that general contempt and disgust for tyrannical regimes in Latin America and elsewhere was a common principle in the House.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that he meant no personal offence and that he was merely making a political point. I dealt with that in my speech. Has he visited Chile recently, or at all, to see whether there has been any improvement?

Mr. Winnick: Who paid for the hon. and learned Gentleman's trip?

Mr. Shore: I have not been to Chile, to Argentina or to South America for some considerable time.

Mr. Winnick: The Chilean authorities paid for the hon. and learned Gentleman's trip.

Mr. Shore: However, I have what I believe to be reasonably accurate information about the internal policies of those countries.
I shall now deal with the major theme that was advanced by many of my hon. Friends. Some spoke about pensions, others about electricity, the National Health Service and education, but the major theme concerned employment and jobs. My hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Mr. Dormand) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) spoke about the coal industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) spoke about the steel industry and others of Ely hon. Friends spoke about employment problems in their areas.
We are approaching the fifth Conservative Christmas. It would be as well for the Leader of the House to understand why the theme of employment has been a consistent refrain of Opposition Members and why Conservative Members have not alluded to it once today. At the first Conservative Christmas, unemployment in Britain stood at 1,258,000. In 1980, the second Conservative Christmas, was 2,016,000. In 1981, the third Conservative Christmas, it was 2,769,000. In 1982, the fourth Conservative Christmas, it was 3,063,000. Today, the fifth Conservative Christmas, it is 3,246,000. I hope that the Leader of the House will understand that that is why Opposition Members plead for action to deal with the problem. There have been suggestions as to how we might deal with some of the specific uncertainties. The Leader of the House should treat them with the seriousness that they deserve.
I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to respond to three requests. First, I hope that he will answer, or favourably respond to, the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), who has merely asked for the release of moneys which have already been voted to his health authority. Secondly, I hope that the Leader of the House will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport to the plea which was made astonishingly expertly by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) about the need for another statement on the Severn bridge. Thirdly, I should especially like the right hon. Gentleman to respond favourably to the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) as the Scott Lithgow problem is acute and urgent.
I have set the Leader of the House a few minor points to which he can respond. 1 hope that he is in a generous mood and that we shall be able to feel that the debate has not been wasted.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): These debates are never wasted, because, although we have settled to the new routine of the three-hour time limit, they enable the House to have a productive period of short speeches during which hon. Members are able most effectively to make points which are of major constituency or general concern.
I shall, of course, refer to all of the relevant Government Departments the points that have been raised. The points raised by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) about hospital allocations and by the hon.


Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) about the Severn bridge will be transmitted immediately to the relevant Government Departments.
Although we have evolved a pattern for this debate, it is just occasionally not entirely pedantic to remind ourselves of the motion which gives rise to it. We are invited to resolve
That this House at its rising on Thursday do adjourn till Monday 16 January.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has explained to me why he cannot be present for the wind-up. He suggested that this was a rather generous holiday and was consistent with his view—he has the conspiratorial idea of politics — that Governments go in for long recesses during which they get away with administrative actions that they would not be able to undertake if Parliament were in session. That is not true as regards the length of the recess, which will be 24 clear days. That compares with 25 in 1981–82 and 23 in 1980–81 and in 1979–80. When I first announced that I intended that the House should go into recess for these dates, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that we should have to hold ourselves in readiness to return if the international situation should deteriorate in some unexpected and highly undesirable fashion. I put on record that that provision exists in Standing Order No. 143, although I am sure that every hon. Member will hope that we can have our recess without the requirement to return.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) spoke of the difficulties that he saw implicit in Phoenix 2 and what it would mean for steel-making in the constituency and wider afield. He argued that more details were required to help sustain confidence. I am sure that he would agree that that part of the steel industry has problems of capacity that have become almost endemic in recent years. I take the point that this decision has serious implications for steel-making generally and I shall see that his arguments are referred to the Department of Trade and Industry.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) made a point to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred, concerning the prospective cancellation of the drilling rig for Britoil. I understand that discussions are already under way through the usual channels, and I hope that it will be possible to meet the points that he raised about there being the chance of a statement.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney also referred to what I accept was a most persuasive speech by the hon. Member for Newport, East about the Severn bridge. As he will know, at the moment an assessment is being made with a view to a decision on strengthening it. Also, a review has been undertaken to consider whether the systems of traffic control can be more effectively related to the conditions. Studies are being undertaken with a view to reaching a judgment on a second crossing. The points that the hon. Gentleman contributed to the knowledge of the House can be contained in those three broad objectives and undertaken by the Government. I feel that he has the House in his debt for his contribution today.
The hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and Walsall, South (Mr. George) spoke about the recent decision concerning the West Midlands college. I appreciate that this college is in special favour in the west

midlands, and I am not unaware of this because of my role as a constituency Member of Parliament. The decision to terminate some courses, which has been taken in the light of the National Advisory Board for Higher Education recommendation, is disappointing, but it has been endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Again, I undertake that the matter will be referred to the Department so that my right hon. Friend can take account of the points argued so strongly by both hon. Gentlemen.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) argued about the GLC development plan under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. He invited me to take on the herculean task of passing judgment on a fairly complex legal matter concerning the Department of the Environment. I shall pass the matter on to those far better qualified than myself to give him the answer that he deserves.
Other hon. Members made speeches on issues of a more general economic nature, such as that on pit closures by the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) earlier in the debate this afternoon and that made by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I appreciate the deep concern and the constituency interest that promoted their speeches and, above all, the fact that the coal industry, perhaps more than any other such activity, is highly concentrated. Therefore, whole communities are prejudiced by the misfortunes of the coal industry in a way that is not true, for example, of the service industries and some other manufacturing activities.
I welcome the spirit of what the hon. Member for Easington said—that it would be wrong to ignore the economies of coal mining and that uneconomic pits should not be kept open for their own sake. I welcome that disavowal of the common agricultural policy approach to the industry, and in that context we can have a proper and constructive debate.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke about Northern Ireland. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, our proceedings have been conducted in the shadow of the solemn statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the sense of deep unease and sadness that infected the House. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I welcome the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and the praise that he offered to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for the way that he enabled the House to debate the matter this afternoon in a constructive and relatively unemotional fashion.
I concur with the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) that we should have a full debate on these affairs in such terms and at such a time that would enable the widest possible participation of the House. Being a most distinguished 19th century historian, he will recollect that the debates on Ireland convulsed the House in prime time and embraced every hon. Member week in, week out. I am sure that he would not wish us to go back to such a situation, but he is right to remind us that this is a topic that is truly in the possession of the House. Having said that, I cannot guarantee that immediately on the return of the House his wish will be granted, but my heart is with him. [Interruption.] Over the years, I have learnt to recognise the shampooed crouch that means that my hon. Friend is


about to spring forward, and I was prepared to give way, but I am grateful to know that I can proceed without any impediment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) gave a lively preview of what his distinctive contribution to our debate might be, which would be designed to remove the political conditions for an alteration in the constitutional arrangement and thereby enable the present pattern to have a reasonable chance of adapting and developing without violence. I note that, as I noted that my hon. Friend wanted to redraw the boundaries with the Irish Republic. I do not think that I am answering for the Government when I stand at the Dispatch Box for these few seconds, so if I make an unintended lapse I apologise and hope that it will be struck out of the record. It occurred to me when I listened to him that it takes two to tango. I have never heard on the part of the Irish Government much enthusiasm for redrawing the boundary, because the moment that they do that they will legitimise the boundary. I eye the hon. Member for Attercliffe, who is the expert, to get confirmation on that point. However, there are all the makings of a first-class debate.
The hon. Member for Brent, South has explained why he is unable to be here for the wind-up, and I have already said that I shall take up the point that he raised. As to the other National Health Service problems, I shall take up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) about his constituency. I hope that his request will be assisted by the fulsome praise that he gave to the national conduct of the policy, even though it had a few shortcomings at regional level.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) complained about the great length of time that it took for him to secure from the Ministry of Defence a reply to a letter. I shall see that the matter is attended to immediately. He referred to company accounts, in the context not of the Ministry of Defence but of the wider issue of lawlessness. I am glad that the issue continues to be raised, because during the period of the previous Government it was a great favourite with Arthur Lewis, whom we greatly miss. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I therefore hastily tried to obtain some reassuring information, instead of leaving the hon. Gentleman to wait the normal bureaucratic time to get his reply. I hope he will be pleased to know that the Government accept that many companies are in default. The Government have been concerned with the problem for some time. The Companies Registration Office in Cardiff was reinforced last year by 30 staff, in an attempt to reduce the number of companies in default. However, the Government are looking at the organisation of the Companies Registration Office to see whether more fundamental changes would be appropriate to deal with the matter in the longer term.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) spoke about regional policy. He contrasted the advantages that he believed were enjoyed by the Welsh development agency and the Scottish development agency with the advantages of those who have to shoulder those responsibilities in England. This issue is well known and

full of such horrendous booby traps that, in this pre-Christmas season, I shall content myself with saying that I have noted it. I shall take further what the hon. Member said about pensions.
A few speeches, which featured prominently in the debate, were on the subject of international affairs. My hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) and Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) spoke about Cyprus and, in particular, the Turkish community there. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe spoke eloquently in favour of the Turkish attitude. However, I cannot encourage him to think that his speech would be immediately echoed in the Foreign Office. The British Government remain ready to enter into consultations whenever the Greek or Turkish Governments are prepared to do so. We must be clear that our powers of any effective authority are limited in these matters, and we must therefore measure our words accordingly.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred to Chile. His was a contentious speech. I want to get out of the Chamber alive, but say that it would be a poor day when no contentious subjects were debated contentiously, because that is what the Chamber is all about.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) raised the subject of the Turkish Peace Association. I, too, read the article in the New Statesman, and I am certain that this issue will feature greatly as a matter of public concern.
Then we heard the fascinating speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), in which he gave a measured representation of the anxieties that I know are widely felt in this country about the safety of our forces attached to the multinational force and, in particular, the political objectives to which they are effectively consigned. If we have the chance to debate this matter again in the near future, I hope that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to expand on it.
I conclude with the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about what he believed to be the ambitions of the European Assembly concerning the £457 million refund. I was not sure whether his contribution was one that the Opposition would commend or whether he spoke in his old role or as a born-again Front-Bencher. Last time, we succeeded in obtaining the refunds. I have no doubt that this is a high-risk game of poker in which these matters are conducted in a way that is advantageous to ourselves. However, no one can have any doubts about the Government's will to secure an equitable financial arrangement with their European—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Periodic Adjournments).

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House at its rising on Thursday do adjourn till Monday 16 January.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 113 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Airbus A320

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. Rob Hayward: I welcome the opportunity of raising the subject of the A320 and launch aid that might be given for it. This matter was discussed as recently as 2 December. Today I shall raise one or two of the issues that were mentioned by the Minister of State in his reply to that debate, and touch on some aspects that have arisen since then. I am conscious that a number of other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I shall not take longer than I need, in order that they may have an opportunity to do so.
When I was preparing my speech, I was tempted merely to comment—Yugoslavia—and then sit down. We heard today that the Yugoslavian state airline is to order five A320s and that it has options on a further three A320s. That confirms the British Caledonian decision of month ago that the A320 is a good aircraft, by any measure. We are no longer talking about an airframe that is to be sold purely to airlines that have a vested national interest. British Caledonian is a highly regarded independent airline, and the Yugoslavian airline cannot be said to have any direct interest in the A320.
Before I say why launch aid should be granted to Airbus Industrie-British Aerospace, I shall comment on Airbus Industrie in the light of what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said on 2 December. My hon. Friend raised three matters which, in my opinion, are worth considering. First, he mentioned the productivity of Airbus Industrie compared with that of American manufacturers. There appears to be a poor comparison between the two. British Aerospace and the other parts of the Airbus Industrie have however made efforts during the past few years to improve their productivity. If the A320 is granted launch aid, the improvements that British Aerospace has made will, I believe, be continued, and the comparison between the American and European manufacturers will continue to improve. However, in view of the differences in labour legislation, we must remember that the same productivity can never be achieved by western Europe as can be achieved in the United States.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the management structure. There is room for greater emphasis, in particular, on the non-French management in the Airbus Industrie consortium. Of course, Britain entered the consortium at a late stage, and if the Government see fit to grant launch aid, I hope that there will be an improvement in British representation in the

senior échelons of Airbus Industrie management. I say "British", but I realise that other nations may have an interest in a change in the management structure also.
My hon. Friend also mentioned subcontractors. It is important that Airbus Industrie considers not only the major contracts but the subcontracts. About 35,000 people in the United Kingdom are employed in companies with an interest in the avionics of civil aircraft. They should not be forgotten. It is important that the senior management in Airbus Industrie considers that if the Government see fit to grant launch aid.
The Government should be able to grant launch aid not only because of the arguments that were advanced on 2 December, but for a number of other reasons. We are discussing a non-party issue. About 190 signatures from hon. Members of all parties have been put to an early-day motion. The subject interests hon. Members of all parties and I shall welcome contributions to the debate from both sides of the House.
Long-term viability was a theme which interested my hon. Friend the Minister on 2 December. He was not interested purely in the question of whether the airframes could be sold, but in whether a financial return could be made. The Minister referred to the Viscount as the only plane that had been able to repay the grant aid given by the Government of the day. Today's circumstances are different from those which have applied in western Europe since the war.
Today more launch or pre-launch orders have been achieved for the A320 than for any other airframe by any manufacturer in western Europe since the war. Its marketability and saleability to any part of the world cannot be in question. If the Government give the go-ahead the 88 firm orders and options that Airbus Industrie already has will be built on substantially. We are not talking about new aircraft but replacements for old and aging aircraft. We are not trying to carve a new niche in the market.
We must consider what some of the authoritative bodies in the aircraft industry suggest are the potential markets for a 150-seat aircraft. Depending on whether one considers Boeing, Rolls-Royce, Merrill Lynch or any other authoritative consideration relating to 1997, 1998, 2002 or 2003, the general estimate is that 3,000 airframes are involved over the next 20 years. That is the average figure. Some of the estimates are above 4,000. The lowest for the next 15 years is 2,500. If Airbus had even a 30 per cent. share of that market it would involve over 700 airframes. At well under that figure the launch aid can be repaid. We are talking not of a grant that will not be repaid, but of a loan which if 700 airframe orders are achieved will be more than repaid.
A major argument against granting launch aid is that three major manufacturers are in the market and that one or two of them will inevitably make a loss, not merely in relation to airframes but to aero engines. There are only two major contenders in airframes—Boeing and Airbus Industrie. McDonnell Douglas has said that it is on the verge of withdrawing. It would be a bad day for European airlines, and airlines worldwide, if there were a monopoly supplier of this or any other airframe.
It is important that the launch aid be granted because the A320 will be built with or without British participation. If we do not participate job prospects will be transferred to other countries in western Europe, and possibly to Canada. The French have already decided to


go ahead. We know from orders by British Caledonian and the Yugoslav airline that the aircraft is viable. Other countries will snap up rapidly our opportunity to create jobs. The number of hon. Members here tonight and the different parts of Britain that they represent shows how many places will be affected by the decision. At a reasonable estimate at least 10,000 jobs are at stake.
If grant aid is not given immediately, between 350 and 500 jobs in the design team will be at risk. Jobs are associated not only with the wings and their moving parts, but with other aspects of British Aerospace and work outside that organisation.
Launch aid must be granted urgently. We cannot go on and on considering. As those involved in airframe manufacture know, we are already on a course of rising expenditure in terms of British Aerospace. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) will discuss the details later. The curve rises with each month.
In some ways we are already late into the market. Some say that decisions should have been taken by Airbus Industrie and the Government many months ago so that the launch could have taken place several months earlier. We are now committed to a 1988 launch, which some say is too late.
If the Government defer a decision beyond early in the new year we shall endanger the whole project for the British. We could not blame the French, the Germans and other members of the consortium if they said, "I am sorry. We have waited too long."
On 2 December the Minister said that he hoped
we shall be in a position to reach a decision early in the new year."—[Official Report, 2 December 1983; Vol. 49, c. 117.]
That must be before the end of January or we can guarantee that 10,000 jobs in the United Kingdom will be job opportunities in other parts of Europe. We shall guarantee that British Aerospace loses its place in the Airbus Industrie consortium and we shall destroy the longterm future of civil airframe manufacturers in Britain. I appeal to the Government to take a favourable decision on launch aid for the A320 early in the new year—that is January.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on presenting an excellent case for the A320 airbus. I wish to indulge in a little nostalgia and sentimentality. The wing section for the Mosquito in which I flew in wartime was built at Broughton in north Wales and its Merlin engine was built by Rolls-Royce. Despite that, I believe that nostalgia and sentimentality never buttered any parsnips. What we need is launch aid to get the aircraft off the deck.
A greater sense of urgency has been apparent recently. I regret that our co-operation with Airbus Industrie has not been as good as it should be. We thought that the RB211 and Tristar would remain for ever and a day. Tristar has gone, manufacture has ceased and Lockheed is out of the civil aviation industry. McDonnell Douglas flashed through the sky with the DC10 and it, too, has now vanished from sight. We are left with Boeing or British Aerospace. The one aircraft that we need for the future is the A320.
The hon. Member for Kingswood was absolutely right —the death knell of the British aviation industry on the construction and power plant side will be sounded unless

launch aid is given. The A320 will get off the deck without our support and without our action, but no British civil aviation industry will be left. That is the reality of the position. If our product was inferior I should not mind too much, but we have a superior product. The high technology wing is welcomed by Airbus Industrie. It wants us as a partner, it needs us as a partner, but it can go alone. The hon. Member for Kingswood was right —time is running out, and running out very fast indeed.
What is intriguing is that the Secretary of State, British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce are coming closer together than I have ever known during my time in the House. There is a great sense of urgency and a tremendous willingness to co-operate. I believe that we should have a larger share of the high technology wing section. A great deal more should come to us. We deserve a great deal more, but we will deserve and get a great deal more only by our own efforts. No one will do it for us. If in fact we go ahead on the airframe side, we must make sure that there is compatibility between the airframe and the engine, and the pylons must be designed to take the Rolls-Royce V2500. That is essential.
I return to my little trip of nostalgia and sentiment down memory lane. In my days as a navigator on night fighters I used some of the most advanced radar equipment then available in the world the mark 10A1-air interceptor. There is nothing wrong with avionics that we produce today in this country. That must be another condition. An aircraft today can be divided into three component parts: the engine—that is the power plant—the airframe and the avionics. We want a cut of every one of those component parts. The Minister must make sure that this area of technology, in which we can hold our own with anyone, is not allowed to go down the drain.
The A320 must get airborne with the maximum amount of British component pars. We are as one in the House tonight. I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Kingswood—we want action, we want it quickly and we want to make sure that the full weight of the Minister is put behind ensuring that we get the A320 with a substantial amount of British components.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on introducing the debate this evening. He has taken a consistent interest in the aerospace industry and we are grateful to him. We appreciate also the contribution of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who spoke from a wealth of experience. His contribution, I am sure, has been noted by the Minister.
We are coming to a crossroads in British civil aviation. We cannot delude ourselves about that. If we wish as a country to continue to participate in the manufacture of large civil jet airliners, Her Majesty's Government must provide launch aid for the A320. There can be no delusions about it.
The hon. Member for Eccles was perhaps exaggerating a little when he said that it would mark the demise of the British civil aircraft industry if Her Majesty's Government did not provide launch aid. I understand the spirit behind his remarks but I think that what he said was perhaps implicitly to decry to some extent the importance of such products as the BAe 146, the HS125-800 and the Jetstream 31, which are all making good progress at present.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am guilty of exaggeration only in the sense that I was talking about large civil aircraft.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The hyperbole in which he indulges is part of his charm and effectiveness. In matters of this type one must put things over a little strongly at times if one is to be fully understood. I will not shirk on that tonight because, as I said, if we wish to remain in the large civil airliner business Her Majesty's Government must come up with the launch aid.
It is a decision of major strategic importance for this country. I cannot see an industrial decision of comparable magnitude in the foreseeable future. It would in a way be flying in the face of the great progress that we have already made as a partner in the Airbus project if we did not support the A320. Indeed, I wonder what our position would be on the Airbus consortium if Her Majesty's Government were not to support with launch aid on the A320 British Aerospace's participation in the project. It would be highly embarrassing because, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the commercial prospects for the airliner are so good that we can be certain that another manufacturer would be found to build the wings and to take up the portion that we all hope would be the role of British Aerospace.
We should also remember—particularly those hon. Members with a Treasury background or Treasury interest —that British Aerospace's participation to date in the A300 has been without Government launch aid, that 350 Airbuses have been ordered and that 70 per cent. of the existing Airbus orders have been for export. The 767, which is the nearest Boeing equivalent to the B2-B4 Airbus, has 175 orders of which only 25 are for export. While the Americans have the advantage of a large home market, nevertheless, the European Airbus has shown itself to be appreciated worldwide by airlines, by the operators and by the travelling public. It is noteworthy that to date 46 airlines worldwide have chosen the Airbus. That is an important fact and a strong base on which to build.
When we are considering the future of the British airframe industry we should not ignore the strategic importance also of, and correlation with, our power plant industry —our our aero engine industry. They go hand in glove. The hon. Member for Eccles referred to the Lockheed 1011. That surely is an example of the great risk we would be undertaking if we were simply to provide launch aid for the IAE2500, the five nation consortium engine in which Rolls-Royce is participating, in the hope of hanging it on an American airframe. That was the great hope for the RB211, but Lockheed went out of the large civil airliner business and now it is much more difficult to find an airframe on which to hang the big RB211—only the 747 in fact. The RB211 derivative—the 535—we can hang on the 757, but the original big 211s were designed for the 1011, and therefore in the engine sphere we should be extremely vulnerable were we not to support the European airframe industry.
Experience with the Airbus tells us how unwise it would be for the United Kingdom not to get its Rolls-Royce power plant certificated for the A320. Rolls-Royce must now bitterly regret the fact that it never got the RB211 certificated for the B2—B4, and A310 Airbus. I am sure that the company feels today that it should never make the same mistake again. Equally, I hope that Her

Majesty's Government will not again make the strategic mistake that they made with the 1011 in relation to our airframe and aero engine industry.
I appreciate that large sums of money are involved, but it is not all money up front. There is a certain amount up front but, as with all launch aid, it will be supplied over a period of time. For the A320, British Aerospace is looking for £437 million from 1983 to 1991, and the peak of expenditure will come in the financial year 1986–87 at about £95 million. Thus, Her Majesty's Treasury should not become too apprehensive about the short-term consequences. It should, however, be worried about the long-term consequences for a major critical strategic industry if we were not participating.
Hon. Members have referred to the increasing dominance of Boeing in the market. Do we in Europe really want to be almost wholly dependent on Boeing for the supply of large airliners? To put it crudely, one must sell a lot of suit lengths and bottles of whisky to pay for the import of high technology, and particularly high value items such as civil airliners. I am sure that the Minister, who takes a particular interest in high technology, will be aware of that argument.
Market analysts in the member companies of which there are four — we are talking of Messerschmitt, (Deutsche Airbus), Aerospatiale, Casa and British Aerospace—have carefully done their calculations; they will not stake the future of their companies on what they believe to have been an ill-thought out and ill-judged venture. Indeed, unless Airbus Industrie has a family of aeroplanes to offer, it can be no true competitor to Boeing, for we know what the situation is in the market place. The Boeing company says to an airline, "We see that you have a requirement for some Jumbo jets. We see that you also have a requirement for a number of single aisle twinjets. We can do a nice package deal for you." Because the profit margin on the Jumbo is so huge — and it has a monopoly — the company can sell the single aisle twinjets, the 737s, at a knock-down price. Unless Airbus Industrie can offer a family of aeroplanes, it will never be able effectively to compete.
The clearest niche in the market at present is in the 150-seat category. Of the single aisle twinjets that were built, about 3,500 are still in existence—the 1-11s, Caravelles, F28s, DC9, Tridents 737s—and all must be replaced, and that is without making allowance for increased growth in air traffic—which is happening now —and without making allowance for the extra passenger appeal of an ultra fuel-efficient, quiet, economic aeroplane such as the A320. The niche is there and the airlines admit it. Companies such as Delta are waiting for the right aeroplane, and such airlines are not just waiting for derivatives.
It suits Boeing to keep its 737s churning out —Boeing has just produced its 1000th — in addition to which Boeing has its 737-300 and maybe a 737-400. Once Airbus Industrie comes into the market with a new aeroplane, the A320, which will offer a dramatic quantum jump in performance and economy, Boeing will have to come up with its 7X7, and it is not keen to do that, not only because it is beginning to make money out of the 737, but because the development costs of the 757 and 767 and the need, in addition, to produce yet another aeroplane—the 7X7 or whatever new 150-seater—will be difficult for the company.
The McDonnell Douglas company has made its decision. It has opted out, to all intents and purposes. It will continue with a derivative aeroplane, the MD80, but is not maintaining its position in the large civil airliner business.
Is this the moment for Her Majesty's Government to opt out? The French and German Governments are not opting out. They have already put £30 million into the project and we can be sure that the commitment of the French Government is complete because they know that if Europe is to mean anything in high technology it must have a major civil airliner capacity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has done an excellent job in raising this matter. We have agreement on the key points, and those agreements Airbus Industrie has already undertaken. They include the provision that 20 per cent. of the work on the new project should be with British Aerospace and that the A320 will be designed from the start to take the Rolls-Royce consortium engine, the IAE 2500. Airbus Industrie has expressed the hope that 20 per cent. of the equipment supplied to the A320 will come from British contractors. I do not think that we can hope for better than that, so let us hope that Her Majesty's Government will not tarry and delay and miss this opportunity.

Mr. Hayward: My hon. Friend referred to 20 per cent. In a parliamentary reply on 2 December, the Minister of State referred to 26 per cent. as being the proportion that British Aerospace could reasonably expect.

Mr. Wilkinson: There is no conflict on this. I expressed the hope of the board of Airbus Industrie that it would be that percentage. After all, the company needs a project that will sell in the market place, so it must be at the right price and have the right performance. Accordingly, British equipment suppliers must come up with the goods in terms of price, quality and performance. The board expressed the hope of at least 20 per cent.
The time has come for us to decide to provide launching aid for the A320 and at the same time for the IAE2500 because the two go hand in hand. If the British Government do that, they will be spending money wisely for the future. After all, so much money has gone to so-called lame ducks such as British Leyland, British Steel and British Shipbuilders. Now we have a project that will meet the needs of the market. It has every expectation of making a profit. That is the kind of investment for the future that should be receiving the support of the British Government.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. Not long ago, there was a major lobby here by people engaged in the aerospace industry. It is appropriate for me to declare my interest. I am sponsored by the Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, which has the largest membership of any trade union in the aerospace industry. In the course of that lobby, that union expressed its concern about this matter.
I particularly welcomed the observations of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about the funding of the A320 project. I recently participated in a meeting with the Secretary of State, and I am aware that

Government Members have also sought a meeting with him. The Secretary of State expressed some concern about the information about funding provided by British Aerospace. Like the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, some Labour Members have also met Sir Austin Pearce and ascertained that a detailed presentation about funding has been submitted to the Secretary of State. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there has been no demand for £400 million to be placed on the table early in 1984 We are talking about a phased programme of funding, and I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out what that means.
At the root of the problem is our concern for the future of a major industry in Britain. I was brought up not very far from Trafford park in Manchester. In those clays, Britain was called the workshop of the world. In many countries, industries exist today because of the effort made by Britain to create those industries. In recent years, we have seen the erosion of many of our major industries, and that has been most disquieting. Will aerospace be another of those industries?
This debate is primarily about the A320. If I were to refer to the agile combat aircraft or the Rolls-Royce 2500 engine, I might be ruled out of order, but those two projects await an urgent decision by the Government and should be given favourable consideration.
I acknowledge the presence of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), who arrived in South Ribble by accident last June. Jobs are the main consideration of the work force in British Aerospace in the Preston area. It has been said that 10,000 jobs may be at stake. Boeing would laugh all the way to several banks in the United States if we allowed this opportunity to develop our own aerospace industry to go by default.
The Secretary of State mentioned at the meeting that he was slightly disturbed about the management of Airbus Industrie in Toulouse. I visited Toulouse with a number of my colleagues and a number of Conservative Members to see what was going on. It may be that we were blind. They say that there are none so blind as those who do not want to see. However, my impression was that it was an active, going concern with a management that would certainly serve us well by promoting the future of the aircraft industry.
I understand that an order for the A320 from Yugoslavia has been announced today. It may be said that an order for eight aircraft is not very important. However, I believe that it may be only the beginning of a flood of orders.
I am aware that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, so I shall be brief. There are some crucial questions that the Secretary of State should consider. Reference has been made to the need for investment in a variety of industries. There have been claims and counterclaims for investment. At a recent meeting, the Secretary of State mentioned biotechnology. We understand that there are competing demands for investment. What perturbs me is the fact that the Government are prepared to continue to tolerate an outflow of several thousand million pounds from this country in the form of investment in foreign industry. It is time that the Government made it clear to those who have the capacity to invest in the private sector that they should concentrate more of their resources within the United Kingdom. Conservative Members often talk in tones of pronounced patriotism, but


when pounds and pence are involved patriotism seems to go out of the window. Those with the capacity to invest in British industry should do so.
Before the general election, the Labour party was interested in the planning of investment. We wanted to promote the establishment of an investment bank. Circumstances beyond our control prevented us from developing our plans. I referred earlier to accidents, such as that which took place in South Ribble. An urgent decision is now awaited anxiously by all who have the interests of British Aerospace at heart, including those who work in the industry and those who wish to see it take a proud place in the international airways.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My constituency will not be immediately affected by any decision taken early next month on this issue. However, I have some prime sites there which I will willingly make available to British Aerospace on favourable terms if it will bring new facilities to the constituency.
The path to No. 11 Downing street is a well trodden one. I trod it myself this evening when I went to collect a free drink, which I fear did not come from the United Kingdom. It is good to take something off the Chancellor, if only a couple of glasses of winter wine.
Supplicants to No. 11 Downing street often go there to seek just one more fix of taxpayers' money to help them go straight again. All too often, the supplicant goes back again to report that the money has been spent and that there is not a great deal to show for it. However, we all agree that the supplicant that we are discussing is very different. This is not some state-owned industry in which public funds have been swallowed by wage increases instead of being invested in new technology. It is a recently liberated and enterprising concern which is in genuine public ownership. In other words, real members of the public own shares in it. It is in the forefront of the new technology. Above all, it is a successful company which last year achieved sales of over £2,000 million, of which 64 per cent.—very nearly two thirds—was attributable to its export performance.
The company's trading profits last year were £112.8 million, of which nearly £8 million went to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay for a new school, a new hospital or some other worthwhile project. The company sustains 79,000 employees, all of whom reluctantly contribute to my right hon. Friend's hat every spring. British Aerospace plc is a success story.
The House has already debated the A320 once this month. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received a presentation from BAe. The debate is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) who is an old sparring partner from Young Conservative days many years ago and who I am delighted to support as we supported each other then. It is also a measure of the importance that many from both sides of the House attach to this issue.
It will be asked in some quarters why a public company cannot raise the £430 million launch aid that is required as British Aerospace's contribution to the Airbus Industrie consortium. If the loan is forthcoming, it will be the first state loan since British Aerospace was nationalised eight years ago.
During that time BAe has financed, entirely from its own resources, the Jetstream 31 which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned, the advanced turbo-prop aircraft and the HS125 executive jet, as we still know it. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) has a particular interest in this matter. British Aerospace has launched the BAe 146 four-engine airliner which recently hit the headlines with the massive and welcome order for 45 aeroplanes from Pacific South West Airlines of the United States of America.
If that were not enough to be financed from the company's resources, in addition it has invested no less than £500 million of its own resources in the existing airbus family — the A300 250-seater and the A310 210-seater. In total that is nearly £1,000 million of privately raised capital for investment. Both sides of the House have been telling British industry that it must invest in the future. British Aerospace has been doing that.

Mr. Michael Marshall: My hon. Friend might want to add the share of £50 million going to the Unisat project from British Aerospace-Marconi which is in addition to the sums that he has been listing.

Mr. Howarth: Indeed. I did not intend that my list should be in any way exclusive. My hon. Friend is right. There are many other areas, particularly space, which make a substantial contribution to the company's overseas earnings. It is virtually all overseas earnings. That is a most welcome contribution.
We should look at the history of the matter. This heavy investment follows Government indecision in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the reluctance of BAC and Hawker Siddeley, the forerunner companies, to invest in advance of Labour's nationalisation proposals. The result has been intensive investment and a catching-up operation which is likely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, to peak at the same time as investment in the A320 is required. The company believes that its balance sheet could not take another £430 million in loans, and that it would be wrong to jeopardise the company's financial position by imposing upon it too onerous a debt-servicing burden or by imperilling the present healthy debt to equity ratio.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a somewhat celebrated remark, said that she does not want another Concorde on her hands. I am sure that she did not mean that Concorde was or remains anything other than a brilliant example of British aeronautical engineering. It is the kind of thing that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) was talking about. However, my right hon. Friend is right to be cautious about spending taxpayers' money. The Government have no money of their own for public expenditure. It is raised from the taxpayer. Concorde was different. It was ahead of its time. It represented a substantial leap in technology. The Americans believed that they were out of the market, and they then sought to kill an aeroplane that did not originate from the United States.
The A320 is a different proposition. First, it is the latest addition to a family. It can draw on its A300 and A310 parentage. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, a relatively modern design and will be breaking into new technology. Secondly, the A300 has been a success. It has reached the financial break-even


point some nine years after its first flight. Thirdly, I pay tribute to the 146, but, apart from that aircraft, the A320 is BAE's only major civil aircraft project. It is the product of a proven partnership with the French, German and Spanish industries in which others, as has already been said, will be only too willing to take our place if we wish to duck out. The United Kingdom needs to retain these skills. Their loss would seriously impair our military aircraft construction capability as well as put any future civil aircraft development at risk.
The hon. Member for Eccles had a point when he mentioned avionics. If we have no home-grown civil aircraft market, will foreigners buy our avionics manufacturers to put their avionics on foreign aeroplanes?
Fourthly, in the debate on 2 December, the Minister of State said:
It is essential, because of the large sums of money being sought, that the Government should be convinced that there are sound prospects of the commercial viability." — [Official Report, 2 December 1983; Vol. 49, c. 1175.]
The Minister will know that the A320 goes into production with options or orders for 88 aeroplanes, eight of which were confirmed today, and, it must be remembered, include 10 from Britain's consistently successful flag carrier—British Caledonian—which never forgets that we have a choice and wants an aeroplane to make money.
Fifthly, it would be wrong to leave the market wide open to allow Boeing to become a monopoly supplier, with all that that implies for the customer. If Airbus, British Aerospace and the Government seize the initiative, there is a window of opportunity available to us which will shortly close. Independent assessments have all shown a requirement for between 140 and 240 of these aircraft per year between now and the next century.
This is not the death rattle of an expiring industry but the opportunity to advance an important and successful one. The A300 and the A310 were launched without a penny of Government money. British Aerospace has already put £12 million into the A320. As with the 146, it has backed its judgment with its cash. When we look at the investment of £3 billion in the coal industry since 1979, over £1 billion in British Leyland, British Steel Corporation and the rest, it surely puts the Airbus requirement into perspective.
For those of us who are interested in reducing Government expenditure, it does not come easy to ask for more. British Aerospace should not be penalised for its history, which in part is due to Government indecision and in part to the actions in this place whereby the forerunner companies were threatened with nationalisation.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the distinction between this request for launch aid and the subventions enjoyed by British Leyland, British Steel Corporation, British Shipbuilders, and the rest is that, whereas those subventions, to some extent, went into the bottomless pit of their loss-making capacity, the Government will receive a levy on sales and therefore recoup the launch aid?

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is absolutely right. It is a loan, not a grant. It is a tribute to BAe that it believes in and is committed to this project, but is not prepared to raise more loan capital because it believes that method to be unsound. Surely it is better that we take a decision based on good information today than that we encourage BAe to accept a financial burden that

it cannot bear and from which we shall have to rescue it three years later when it is up against the wall. We are talking of an individual project, not of bailing out an unsuccessful company. The thrust of my argument is that we are talking about success, not about another lame duck.
There is an overwhelming commercial and political case, as there was with the Viscount, for setting the A320 on the runway with the reluctant assistance of the British taxpayer. This being the season of good will, I hope that Father Christmas will be benevolent to BAe and that BAe will not miss the sleigh. We have a window of opportunity. I hope that the case that we have made will convince the Minister to give a firm date for a decision —a decision which I hope will be favourable.

Dr. John Marek: This debate is important for civil aviation and for our future as an industrialised nation exporting top quality engineering products. Early-day motion 249 on this subject has attracted 193 signatures. That is more than most motions. In explaining the rationale behind the motion, I have found no hon. Members opposed to it. If hon. Members were not so busy, I am sure that there would soon be more than 325 signatures.
Since my election I have attended no debates until now in which I have agreed with everything said by Conservative Members, and this is not a party political issue. Hon. Members on both sides are urging the Minister to announce launch aid for this project as soon as possible. For the reasons that have been given, I agree that we need this decision before the end of January. If the decision is not favourable, not only would it be a great loss to this country, but we would lose yet another opportunity to contribute to an eventual economic recovery. As a result, there would be an American monopoly—probably only Boeing—in building civil airliners.
There is risk with the A320 venture, as there always is with such undertakings and as there was with Concorde — but there the similarity ends. BAe has made independent assessments of the project's viability. Even on a pessimistic forecast of aircraft sales, there is still great optimism that the project will be a commercial success.
Airbus Industrie has a track record of good sales of the A300 and A310 series. Further orders are coming in and it has work for the next two two and a half years at least. It can claim to have met all the deadlines on time and within the budget.
The A320 is a smaller aircraft—a 150-seater—and there is a market for it to replace aging aircraft such as the 727, 737, DC9 and 111. With the new CFM 56-4 engine, the Opposition believe that the A320 will be a winner. It will satisfy the new noise regulations, and will have lower fuel consumption and lower operating costs. Above all, the engine has proven capabilities. Rolls-Royce also has the opportunity to enter the project, and during the past two or three weeks those of us who have taken an interest in this matter have heard that it is just possible that the new Rolls-Royce engine may be ready in 1988, at the same time as the launch of the A320. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) referred to the pylons, but I am sure that that problem can be solved. With good will and, above all, with the Government's support—

Mr. Carter-Jones: I hope that the Minister will insist that there be compatibility for the pylon between existing engines and the proposed V2500.

Dr. Marek: If that is done, Britain can yet again play an important part as a supplier of civil aircraft to the world.
I am not concerned with how the Government find the money for the launch. It may be public or private money, or a mixture of both. However, if the public must bear some risk, I hope that eventually the profits will be returned to the public in the ratio of the risk that they have borne. Above all, I urge the Government not to compartmentalise the matter and to treat it on an economic basis on its own without looking further afield, even though, if they did that, they would find that the project was likely to be a commercial success. The project will have many benefits which may not be easily quantifiable.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned subcontractors, and many other benefits will flow from the project. I urge the Government to provide the necessary launch aid. It does not matter how they do it, as long as they do it, and I hope that they will give their decision by the middle of January at the very latest.

Mr. Timothy Wood: I join my hon. Friends and Opposition Members in urging the Government to support the A320 project. At this stage in the debate many points have already been made, but I wish to highlight a few of them.
The Government must take a long-term and broad view of their overall approach to high technology projects. It is not good enough for them to consider in an ad hoc way how they will approach a project and to take many months or years in so doing.
Several hon. Members have reminisced, and I shall add to the reminiscences by saying that when I was at university I took a vacation job at Bristol. I looked at one or two aerospace projects and was involved in some critical path figuring. In each of those projects in those days there were hold-ups — waiting for Government decisions on whether the project should go ahead. Sadly, the position has not improved. However, it must improve, because if it does not old industries will die and we shall be reluctant and afraid to take the initiatives to ensure that new industries flourish. It is crucial that the Government reconsider their approach to such matters.
There is a European dimension in this matter. One reason why I was a firm supporter of joining the EC was that I hoped to see full co-operation in high technology ventures. In Airbus Industrie we have that co-operation, yet we hesitate, hesitate and hesitate again. If we continue to hesitate for much longer, Britain will fail and other countries will take the initiative. We can be confident about much in this venture. The A300 and the A310 are a clear demonstration that those aircraft can be highly competitive in world markets. We may not have achieved the rate of sales that we expected, not because of any failure on the part of those aircraft, but more because of the recession in the aircraft industry as in every other industry.
I believe that particularly with Boeing being the only major competitor likely to be in the field for this type of aircraft, Airbus Industrie is an essential competitor to Boeing. We must support Airbus Industrie in that venture.

British Aerospace has demonstrated its outstanding expertise over the years. It has outstanding experience in the development of airframes in various ways, whether small aircraft or in the contribution to enterprises such as Concorde. However, the contrast with Concorde could not be greater when one considers the financial viability of the overall project. We have in the A320 an established type of aircraft. Many aircraft are coming up for renewal. The A320 can provide what is so necessary in the coming years. It will provide better economy and fuel efficiency. It also produces much less noise, which everyone wants. It will be a popular aircraft. It will be a successful aircraft if only we do not hesitate for too long.
Let us consider the launch aid that has been requested. Some people have suggested that in this case the aircraft manufacturers are saying, "We do not want responsibility for funding this project. We are prepared to do it, but we are not prepared to take the risk." However, British Aerospace is prepared to take the risk, is putting money in and will continue to put money in during the development of the A320 project. If British Aerospace has carried out those analyses, I have sufficient confidence in it that it will be able to succeed with that aircraft.
In recent years, British Aerospace has put tremendous amounts of investment into a variety of projects. Some instances have been mentioned in the debate. I can add the investments in varied military projects, all consuming enormous amounts of development funding from British Aerospace. Now we have come to the time when, after the large amount of development funding from the manufacturers, it would be appropriate for the Government to give a definite sign of support. In that, I come back to my original point. All the decisions need to be taken quickly. A decision in a year's time would be a waste of time. It would be a tragedy. Let us have the decision in weeks rather than months.

Mr. Roger Stott: It might be convenient if I intervene at this point in the debate to set out the Opposition's view on the A320. Throughout the debate there has been remarkable unanimity. As this is the season of good will, I assure everyone present that I have no intention of spoiling it. Indeed, I intend to join in that spirit of unanimity as the debate progresses to its conclusion.
Hon. Members who have spoken have made a case for the British Government to involve themselves in the project and provide launch aid for the A320. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), who introduced the debate, followed in the footsteps of his hon. Friend and close neighbour, the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), who on 2 December raised the matter of the A320. Again, because it is Christmas, it is nice to find myself in agreement with the hon. Members for Kingswood and for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), who were bitter opponents of mine on the Telecommunications Bill. It is good to see unanimity in the House tonight on such an important issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) said how much we were impressed by the lobby which we attended a couple of weeks ago, which was on behalf of the work force of British Aerospace. Members of the work force came from all over the United Kingdom. Admittedly, they were trying to influence the decisions of Members of Parliament on a whole range of issues, not just


the A320 and the agile combat aircraft, but helicopters. They feel that they are at a crossroads in terms of their future employment and future projects.

Mr. Hayward: The hon. Gentleman referred to the work force of British Aerospace. There were also representatives from industries outside British Aerospace, which reflects the importance of the decision not only to British Aerospace but to other parts of the British aerospace industry.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman should be used to me by now. I was going to turn over the page of my notes and say that the decision on the A320 is not limited to those who are employed in British Aerospace, for whom it is vital, but is important for our avionics industry, which produces the instrumentation that is likely to go into our future civil aviation projects — for example, Lucas Industries, and not forgetting Rolls-Royce, which has been mentioned in the debate.
I think that I can dispense with all the facts and figures that I have collated about the importance of the project and the orders that are likely to come in if the Government go ahead with the launch aid. The market between now and the year 2000 will expand. That is evidenced by the rapid development of airport capacity throughout the world. One has only to look across the Atlantic to see what Pratt and Whitney and Boeing are doing to meet future aviation needs. We cannot ignore that need and the capacity.
I was interested to read in The Observer this weekend an article by Victor Smart and William Lord, which stated:
Moves behind the scenes to inject private cash into building the 150-seater A320 airliner—and so defuse one of the biggest and toughest industrial decisions before the Government — have thrown up a flurry of proposals from merchant banks … Trade and Industry Minister John Butcher will come under pressure to reveal details of the Airbus financing. Opposition MPs are bound to raise fears that the City will cream off profits from the plane while enjoying Treasury financial guarantees.
The Minister knows my views about the public sector borrowing requirement and the fact that the City might be prepared to put up money for the launch aid for the A320. I would not imagine that that would necessarily count in the PSBR. I have long argued that such things should not count in the PSBR unless the loan is called in, which I hope it never will be in this case.
Another article by Victor Smart in The Observer referred to the agonising dilemma facing Europe. It said:
But Britain does not have the stomach to pull out of the civil aerospace big league. Hard-won expertise would be thrown away at a time when other countries without this know-how (notably Japan) are paying dearly for admission tickets to the aviators' club. Re-entry would be prohibitively expensive.
We all share that view. Re-entry would be extremely expensive not only in terms of capital, the launch aid and research and development, but in terms of recruitment of engineers and designers, whom we could lose in the process. I am told that the Minister of State was on the radio today. He was interviewed about the topic that we are discussing and was asked:
Now, what about the future of the British aerospace industry? Doesn't it depend on a decision in favour of British commitment to Airbus?
The Minister replied:
Well, this is obviously extremely important for our civil aerospace industry. We are only in the major civil aerospace projects, the large aeroplanes, through our membership of the Airbus Industrie consortium".
That part of our aerospace industry is enormously important to us.
The Minister was then asked:
Could the civil aviation industry survive without Airbus?",
to which he replied:
I don't think one could answer that question absolutely categorically. I think I would say the A320 is enormously important for our remaining in the large civil aerospace field.
I second that comment. I agree absolutely and totally with the Minister. The A32.0 is essential to Britain if it is to remain in the big league.
I am reminded of a debate that took place a few years ago on whether launch aid was necessary or desirable. I served on the Standing Committee on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, as several Opposition Members will be aware. That tortuous exercise brought British Aerospace into existence.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who was then the Minister of State at the Department of Industry, announced during the proceedings on the Bill that the Government would support what was then Hawker Siddeley with launch aid for the HS 146. I remember that comments were made about whether launch aid was necessary or if the money would be well spent. My information is that the HS146 is a very successful aircraft. It has been bought as a feeder aircraft by Western Airlines in the United States. It is currently flying and carrying passengers in California, the heartland of Boeing, so it is a competitive aircraft. If the Government had not supported the aircraft with launch aid, it would not now be flying, nor would it be commercially successful. The decision was right then and the decision is right now.

Mr. Wilkinson: Although the Government injected launch aid into the HS146, is it not remarkable, when referring to the A320, that early-day motion No. 249 has no fewer than 193 signatures? Does my hon. Friend the Minister recollect any other occasion on which such unanimity has been expressed by the House? In those circumstances, would it not be difficult for the Government, by not granting launch aid, to fly in the face of the concerted view of the House?

Mr. Stott: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, but he is making my speech for me. I was about to conclude on somewhat similar lines.
It is generally recognised that the work force of British Aerospace is committed to its task. It is highly skilled, highly trained and superbly technically educated—very similar to the work force of British Telecom. One can draw a parallel. It has been at the forefront in the defence of its industry. It has done so with much persuasion and dignity.
It was unfortunate—I now enter into the spirit of Christmas, otherwise I would choose more condemnatory prose — that the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister equated the A320 with Concorde when dealing with an off-the-cuff parliamentary reply about aid during Prime Minister's Question Time. The hon. Member for Stevenage said that there was no comparison between Concorde and A320. I hope that the Prime Minister will reflect on occasions that she is not the font of all wisdom and that such comments can be slightly damaging under the circumstances.
The House has had a remarkably good tempered arid good humoured debate, and displayed a level of unanimity the like of which I have not seen for a long time. The Opposition's view is not can we afford the launch aid required for the aircraft, but, for all the reasons stated by


my hon. Friends and by Conservative Members, can Britain afford not to have a piece of the action for the next generation of civil aviation? The Opposition believe that we must support the project.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): There has, as many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have said, been an unnerving but understandable level of unanimity in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) hinted that it may have something to do with the spirit of Christmas. I believe that the reason was that the debate and the issues were felt with great sincerity and not just for constituency reasons. Many hon. Members have been persuaded as to the merits of launch aid and have subsequently pressed the issue with great strength and vigour.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) who has done the House a great service and said, in his opening remarks, that this subject has become a non-party issue. He led us correctly to his view that productivity, which is one of the key aspects in launch aid, is important, and that signs exist that British Aerospace and the aerospace industry are starting to move towards the levels of productivity which were hitherto enjoyed only in the United States.
We congratulate the work force and the management in moving fairly rapidly in that direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said that we should examine ways of maximising our components, systems and avionics suppliers into the airframe, and that we should do everything possible to enhance the prospects of our subcontractors. He was right to point out, as did many hon. Members, that we are dealing with jobs and skills and with keeping teams of skilled people together. He pressed the Government to make a decision at the earliest possible opportunity.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) prefaced his remarks by saying that he would indulge in a little nostalgia. Having spent my childhood on airforce bases, I shall not bandy words with the hon. Gentleman about the Mosquito or its power unit. The Government are keen that the V2500 continues in the fine Rolls-Royce tradition of excellence in aero engine manufacture. We are aware that the British supply industry has magnificent expertise in avionics. We have progressed in the sphere of radar in ways that other countries are only just beginning to understand. The healthy precedent was set when the hon. Gentleman was perhaps not feeling nostalgic but a little harassed with flak around him at the time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood asked several questions. I join him in saying that we wish to have a greater British representation at the senior level of Airbus Industrie as the opportunities arise. We join him in the congratulations on the Yugoslavian order, which is greatly welcomed. It is further evidence of the commercial appeal of the A320. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that the orders and options for the A320 are at the largest pre-launch level achieved. We agree in general terms with my hon. Friend's argument that the market estimates for the 150-seat aircraft in the 20-year period from 1988 to

2007 range from between 2,500 and 3,500. If we consider the projection by Airbus Industrie of 25 per cent. to 30 per cent., about 700 sales would result.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), the chairman of the Aviation Committee, reminded us that the industry has nothing to be ashamed of. We have produced some magnificent aircraft recently, such as the BAe 146, the Jetstream and the HS 125. I join him in paying a tribute to the success of the Airbus to date. He also mentioned the need to get a Rolls-Royce power plant specified as early as possible, and to urge Rolls-Royce that certification for suitability for incorporation in the aircraft should be pursued with great vigour. We are aware that a family of aeroplanes is one of the best marketing tactics.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) paid tribute to the TASS lobby. I fully understand why he did that —he led about 25 per cent. of it. I cannot mention the hon. Member for Preston without mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)—the erstwhile Member for Preston, North—who has ensured that I say nothing that may be contradictory. He has great expertise in this area, and would not let me conclude my remarks without mentioning the agile combat aircraft and the great dependence of the folk of Lancashire on that.
I have a common motivation with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood. I would be delighted if a number of high-tech industries established their presence in the Cannock area. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to press me on that matter.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) pressed for an early decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), who has great expertise in high technology projects, argued in this debate, as he has in others, that we should not take an ad hoc approach and that we should look at the way that "UK Limited" moves towards a higher added value industry.
I take issue with my hon. Friend on one point— I would change the emphasis in his projection for older industries. I want the older established industries to use high technology to maintain their future prospects and get into a higher added value industry.
The current Airbus range is undoubtedly the largest and most important civil aerospace programme in Europe today. The Government fully appreciate the significance of the Airbus programmes to both the British and the European aerospace industries. It is most gratifying to see the success which Airbus Industrie — in which the British stake is represented by British Aerospace's 20 per cent. partnership share—has achieved in establishing a position second only to Boeing as a manufacturer of wide-bodied civil aircraft, and demonstrating that a European collaborative venture can rival the major United States manufacturers.
If it is to sustain and consolidate the market position that it has won, Airbus Industrie believes that it must broaden its product range into a family of aircraft. British Aerospace has explained in depth the implications of the project for the company, including the employment aspects, the maintenance of design and technological skills and the importance of collaborative projects.
When British Aerospace was privatised in February 1981, it was stated that the company would have the same eligibility for Government finance as other companies in the private sector, and as its predecessor companies had prior to nationalisation. The Government stand by that


statement and have repeatedly made it clear that we are prepared, in principle, to consider launch aid for participation by British Aerospace — and, indeed, by other aerospace companies — in viable new projects. Evaluation of the British Aerospace application for launch aid in respect of the A320 is proceeding as a matter of urgency, and the Government hope to reach their decision shortly.
We shall use our best efforts to deliver a decision within the time

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: rose—

Mr. Butcher: I have only three more minutes—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When shall we have a decision?

Mr. Butcher: If I had been allowed to finish my sentence, I would have said that we were hoping to deliver a decision by the end of January, which is within the timescale mentioned by a number of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members.
On far too many occasions it has not been possible to achieve an adequate rate of return on the large sums invested in civil aerospace programmes by the Government and the companies themselves. Among the many civil aerospace programmes undertaken with Government support during the last 30 years or so, only the Viscount on the airframe side and the Spey, Avon and Tyne on the aero engine side have sold in sufficiently large numbers for the Government investment to have been repaid in full.
It is essential not only to the Government in the context of the very substantial amount of public funds being sought, but to British Aerospace — as the major constituent of our airframe manufacturing industry, and as an employer — to be assured that there are sound prospects for the commercial viability necessary to ensure that the A320 can contribute effectively to the company's overall industrial strategy and technological base.
I was asked a particular question by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) about funding. I join him in commending the great skill within British Aerospace and the need to maximise that skill. We are naturally interested in mobilising private sector funding for the A320. Careful consideration will be given to proposals that merchant banks or City institutions can devise to operate either an alternative form of launch aid or in conjunction with the more traditional form of launch aid. No decisions or commitments have yet been made, and no formal proposals have yet been commissioned or received. I hope that that meets the hon. Gentleman's point.
The House has excelled itself in putting forward a number of resolute but well-reasoned arguments. It has acted not out of charity but out of sound business sense. These are precisely the criteria that the Government will utilise in making their now urgent assessment of the application for launch aid.
I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the House —as it is Christmas—for their speeches today.

Visiting Forces Act 1952

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: This debate concerns the operations of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. Probably few people, including hon. Members, know anything about the Act. I knew nothing until my attention was drawn to it by the BBC television programme "60 Minutes" on 8 November. I subsequently obtained a script of the broadcast and asked the House of Commons Library to do some research.
I also obtained copies of the answers given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to questions asked by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) on 11 November. He said:
The Visiting Forces Act has operated satisfactorily for 30 years and has not been amended by any subsequent Government." — [Official Report, 15 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 407.]
I ask the House to note carefully the words
the Visiting Forces Act has operated satisfactorily".
I intend to prove that the very opposite of that assertion is nearer the truth.
The more that I studied the matter, the more worried and alarmed I became. Information produced by Mr, Duncan Campbell of the New Statesman both for the BBC programme and for his article in the New Statesman on 18 November must have been profoundly disturbing to large numbers of people who saw the programme or read the article. Mr. Campbell has written a book on these matters and probably knows more about the operation of the Act than anyone else. I understand that his book will be published early next year. He is an authority on the subject and he deserves our thanks, and the thanks of the nation, for serving the public interest in a matter of great concern to all.
I shall put the matter into its historical perspective. The Visiting Forces Bill was introduced in the House on 17 October 1952. It deals basically with all matters that must be regulated when armed forces of one country are stationed on the territory of another. The history of such legislation was outlined in that debate by the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, Sir David Maxwell Fife. He recalled that there were three earlier Acts—the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act 1933, the Allied Forces Act 1940 and the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act 1942. He described how the 1951 Command Paper 8279 was presented to Parliament embodying an
Agreement entered into between the North Atlantic Treaty Powers relating to the status of their forces in the territory of another North Atlantic Treaty Power.
The 1952 Act sought to implement by legislation those agreement obligations that could not otherwise be implemented—notably the position of armed forces with respect to the criminal law and the settlement of civil claims.
Anyone who has read that debate in 1952 would find that it was a field day for the lawyers in the House, and not for the first time. The initial reaction of the Labour party spokesman, Mr. John Strachey, the then Member for Dundee, West, was one of considerable caution and reservation. He said that, in important respects, the Bill
goes further than any peacetime Act.
He said that there were three distinct cases in which the jurisdiction of the British courts was completely precluded. The first was when the offence was against any


visiting service man or the civilian component of that visiting power. That is satisfactory. No one has any objection to that. He said that the second case was
when the offence is against the property of the visiting power.
That also is completely acceptable. His third case was when the offence was committed in the course of his—the offender's — duty the visiting power would have primary but not absolute rights to jurisdiction. The decision as to when a man is on duty or not is left entirely with the man's commanding officer or higher authority and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts. There lies the root of the trouble. If a United States—I refer especially to United States forces —service man or the civilian component of that power commits any offence during his duty, as defined by his commanding officer, no British court has any redress against him. During the 1952 debate, Mr. Eric Fletcher, the former Labour Member for Islington, East, and a respected QC, said;
This Bill … removes from the jurisdiction of the courts of this country a very large number of people … There has not been anything like that in this country since the Middle Ages, … when there was a certain Papal jurisdiction which could defeat the claims of the English common law courts." —
[Official Report, 17 October 1952; Vol. 505, c. 562–86.]
The Act primarily affects United States service men and their civilian components now stationed in the United Kingdom. The problem will become even more acute as cruise missiles are established, deployed and moved around primarily by United States personnel.
Examples of possible contingencies were cited in the article in the New Statesman by Mr. Duncan Campbell and in an article on 14 November last in The Guardian by Malcolm Dean. If, for instance, a United States service man on duty at Greenham common or any other base in the United Kingdom shot and injured a British woman demonstrator or passerby, either by accident or design, he would under no circumstances come before a British court. Is that a fact? Would the person who had inflicted the damage be handed over to his commanding officer or would some decision by made by the British Government about how he should be dealt with? Would the commanding officer alone decide what, if anything, would be done in such a case?
If a demonstrator were killed or injured by United States guards, can the children or other dependants sue for damages? Are those allegations fact or fiction? If a cruise missile during a journey into the countryside caused a horrific accident in the United Kingdom, can anyone sue the United States Government for a brass farthing? My information is that people could not. It is true that the United Kingdom Government might pay up, but there is no statutory obligation on them to do so, and certainly there is no obligation on the United States Government to do anything.
During the past 30 years there have been occasional incidents that have incensed British citizens when United States' service personnel have been seen to act in a highly irresponsible and high-handed way. Examples have been cited by Mr. Duncan Campbell, including the cases of the shooting and wounding of a British worker at the United States air base at Northolt in west London and six United

Kingdom civilians being wounded by a United States NCO when he hijacked a car and drove from the base at Manston in Kent, having killed, among others, an RAF policeman. Mr. Campbell stated:
In serious cases of 'negligent homicides', US motoring offenders have received trivial penalties and avoided paying damages after evading British jurisdiction.
He continued:
In August 1979, for example, a US Marine working as a nuclear weapon store guard at St. Mawgan in Cornwall was given a trivial fine and a 'letter of admonition' after killing a youth.
The youth was 17 years old. He was killed by a marine driving a jeep at high speed on the wrong side of the road. The United States Navy authorities interrupted the local inquest on the youth and prohibited the coroner, Mr. Alan Harvey, from continuing. The Americans then held a court martial in the centre of London and the marine was fined $1. That is an outrageous example of flagrant abuse of power and authority by visiting forces. I wonder whether, having studied that, the Minister will still adhere to his view that the Act is working and has worked satisfactorily for 30 years.
As of now, magistrates and judges in our courts are powerless to deal with such manifest injustices. Even when civil liability is involved — for example, in motoring accidents—United States personnel can and do evade their responsibilities. A further example is given, which I shall not relate in detail. The judge expressed his anger in measured and restrained terms but was powerless to do anything about it.
According to Mr. Duncan Campbell, the problem is substantial. Apart from the 1,500 or so driving accidents, 100 of them serious, there have been far more dangerous accidents, the consequences of some of which could have been catastrophic. For example, an unauthorised mechanic from Alconbury took off in a B45 bomber and crashed almost immediately on the main London-Edinburgh railway line. Luckily, there was no train underneath, but hundreds of lives could have been lost. Who would have been responsible for settling claims for damages? I suspect that no one would have been responsible in law.
Mr. Campbell also cites probably the most notorious case of United States military disturbance. In 1973 there was a riot in which nearly 100 United States sailors rampaged through the town of Dunoon waving knives and giving black power salutes. Twenty-two shops were damaged and a youth was stabbed. On that occasion, six United States sailors were charged in Scottish courts, presumably because it could not be argued that they were on duty.
Mr. Campbell then tells of a more interesting and perhaps more sinister development. He says:
In crisis or war, before sending reinforcement troops to Europe, the United States plans to obtain yet more extensive 'emergency' powers from NATO governments. The text of an Emergency Status of Forces Agreement, which would be negotiated before reinforcements arrived, was among secret US documents leaked in 1980".
Apparently, there were leaks on both sides of the Atlantic.
Once signed, the emergency agreement would give local US commanders the right to deploy nuclear weapons and military forces as they pleased and the right to 'quell' local disorder by any 'unilateral' means necessary. Members of US forces would then be exempt from all national laws in all circumstances.
Significantly, the United Kingdom was exempt. Apparently, no emergency status of forces agreement was needed because the Visiting Forces Act 1952 gave United States forces here in peacetime all the special powers that they would seek in other NATO countries in time of war. As Mr. Campbell says,


It is scarcely surprising that the US servicemen's 'Welcome to Britain' guide has reflected rosily on the legal status of US forces in Britain".
The guide states:
When the arrangement was formalised, it included many advantages to the Air Force and its personnel.
They can say that again.
The writer of the article has done well to expose what appears to be an intolerable state of affairs. Moreover, the problems have become immeasurably more serious and horrific with the advent of cruise missiles with accompanying United States forces and civilians and the future deployment of those missiles around the British countryside. The number of accidents involving United States citizens and British people is bound to escalate and the irritation and anger of British citizens will surely grow as increasing numbers of them taste the bitter injustices of the operation of the legislation.
There are United States bases all over the United Kingdom. We all know where they are. It is rumoured that the United States wants a cruise missile base in Thurso in north east Scotland. It is therefore perhaps appropriate to quote an extract from a BBC television programme which demonstrated in all its injustice the way in which the Visiting Forces Act 1952 operates. I have the transcript and shall try to paraphrase it as briefly as I can.
On 31 August 1965, Mrs. Iris MacDonald, a young married woman, was pushing her four-week-old daughter in a pram, with her little lad beside her, up a hill. She was walking along the road to her home in the Argyll village of Sandbank, having visited the child care clinic in Dunoon. She suddenly discovered that a British Road Services lorry was coming up behind her and that over the brow of the hill was coming an American driven car. She says that the car was being driven at about 90 mph. There was a crash. The car went out of control and the result was that her four-week-old daughter was killed and she lost a leg and dislocated an arm. What happened? Absolutely nothing. The driver was never taken to court but merely appeared before his captain—his commanding officer—and was fined £35. That is an example of how the Act is working. During that programme Mr. Campbell said:
the American forces have treated with contempt the victims of injuries, the police on occasions, and the courts, in terms of just appearing to answer compensation cases.
Is that type of immunity to British courts, which United States service men enjoy, unique in NATO? It is true that neither British nor American forces enjoy such immunity in, for example, Germany or any other NATO country. It is significant that The Observer yesterday published a minute concerning how British troops were to be deployed to stop the political risk of United States service men opening fire on the women protesters at Greenham common. It is alleged to have been produced by the Secretary of State for Defence. The article said that the minute stated that:
US troops might shoot British citizens once the missiles arrive.
Mr. Heseltine had therefore arranged for a ring of British troops to stand between the Americans and protesters.
The American would be told the British troops would themselves be authorised to fire.
That is what the Secretary of State said to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) during exchanges in the House a few weeks ago. We can at least maintain that if United Kingdom forces shot and killed or wounded a British citizen the British courts would immediately he involved. If United States soldiers shot

and killed or wounded somebody under the terms of the Visiting Forces Act, inquests could be blocked and thwarted by United States military authorities and those responsible would be beyond the reach of our British law courts.
Does the Minister still adhere to the view that the law is working and will continue to work satisfactorily in those conditions, or are he and the Government content to behave as if we were under the heel of an occupying colonial power? That seems to be the relationship at the moment.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): Rubbish.

Mr. Hamilton: I am glad that the Under-Secretary is saying, "Rubbish". The onus is on the Government to see that these things have not or could not happen. My information is that they could and would happen under the terms of the existing legislation, the Visiting Forces Act 1952. The Government should declare to the United States Government that they are determined to repeal or amend this shockingly unjust and unfair legislation. The ball game is now completely different from what it was in 1952. Therefore, the legislation should recognise the change in circumstances.
If neither the Secretary of State nor the Government do this, I recommend that the Select Committee on Defence should investigate, as a matter of the greatest importance, the working of the Act, and treat it as a matter of supreme urgency. The present position is indefensible and horrifying in its implications.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on coming so high in the ballot for the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill, but I regret that he has used this important subject as a means for delivering a diatribe against the American service men in this country and their role in NATO, which, as we know, is vital in maintaining the strength of NATO and thus the peace and security of western Europe.
What is more, to suggest that the Visiting Forces Act 1952 applies only to American service men and gives them some unreasonably privileged position in terms of visiting forces within the NATO area is a gross distortion of the facts. He must know if he read, and he told us that he has read, the Second Reading debate in 1952 on the Visiting Forces Bill, as it was, that it was made clear that the arrangement that was being created applied as much to British forces abroad—

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: It does not.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: —as to forces in this country. Although the hon. Gentleman tells me that it does not, I have a note in my hand which was produced in the past 48 hours which says:
It is important to bear in mind that the right of American service men stationed here to try by American standards under Visiting Forces legislation is no more than the British claim in respect of their forces wherever stationed if there is a visiting forces agreement with the host country.
Although we have had United States air force personnel living and stationed in west Berkshire for many years, their relationship with the local community has always been excellent. In the nine years that I have had the privilege to represent Newbury, I have not had any case brought to


my attention which would justify the comments made by the hon. Gentleman, in which he tried to suggest that the United States services ride roughshod over Britons and over our laws. However, because cruise missiles are a new departure in west Berkshire, I am more than ever sensitive to anything that could create, through misunderstanding, the impression that the laws of our land are not accepted by a nation which is stationing its forces in our country at our invitation. I shall therefore raise three or four matters on which I shall be grateful to have my hon. Friend's comments.
As I said, the public relations aspects of the Visiting Forces Act have never been more important than they are now. If my hon. Friend the Minister chooses to go over the main features of the Act this evening I at least shall welcome it, because I intend to send a copy of this debate to my local press and I am sure that it will want to report it in full.
I shall preface my speech by quoting from two letters which I have received from constituents who, like the hon. Member for Fife, Central, saw "60 Minutes", the television programme. One is from Mr. Jacobs of Enborne Street, Newbury, who said:
I am particularly concerned about this statement in view of the increasing number of U.S. service personnel residing in the Newbury area. Can you please explain what if any recourse to law and compensation my family or I might have against a U.S. serviceman if he was responsible for a motoring accident involving my wife or children? Can it really be that in such an unfortunate circumstance the U.S. serviceman is deemed to be uninsured for damage to persons or property?
The second letter is from Mrs. S. E. Thompson of Cold Ash who wrote:
With so may U.S. servicemen now stationed in this area this Act would seem to be of great importance to your constituents. The most obvious and likely problems concern traffic regulations. It is apparent that many U.S. servicemen's cars have defective silencers, and presumably more serious defects in tyres, brakes etc. may go unchecked. Do their cars have to have MOT tests? Do they all have Third Party Insurance? Is either compensation or retribution available in the event of death or injury caused by drunken or dangerous driving by a U.S. serviceman? Cases have been quoted of trivial sentences being passed by Courts Martial in cases of manslaughter by dangerous driving. There are of course many other areas in which crimes might be committed by visiting servicemen which could affect local people. A number of cases have already been reported of non-payment of bills or rent, and of damage to rented houses, for which the U.S. Authorities seem to take no responsibility.
That is the local concern, as expressed in two letters. Perhaps the fact that I have had so few letters suggests that most people in my constituency accept the good relations that have existed and see no reason why those good relations should not continue.
I shall try to narrow my speech to three specific areas. In the debate on 17 October 1952 a great deal was made of the primary right. The Secretary of State for the Home Department said:
The courts of the receiving State are given the primary right to deal with offenders unless … the offence was committed on duty, or was solely against the person or property of another member of the force or solely against the property or security of the sending State itself.
The question of primary right being waived by the Act seems to me to pose questions about liability, compensation when damage is done, and the types of offences that can be covered by the Act.
On the subject of liability, I should like to know—the debate on the Second Reading did not make the matter

entirely clear—whether, in the event of an accident, liability relating to personal injury or damage to property lies with the United States authorities, or through what is described in the Act as the War Office Claims Commission. As we no longer have a War Office, do we still have a War Office Claims Commission, or have we changed its name? If that is so, surely the Act has been amended.
The then Home Secretary said:
In the first place, Article VIII of the Agreement does not apply to contractual claims. It applies only to claims in respect of wrongful acts—that is to say, what the lawyers call 'torts' —committed by members of the visiting force or of a civilian component of that force. Different considerations apply according to whether the act complained of was committed in the course of official duty or otherwise.
It has been arranged that all claims in tort against members of a visiting force, whether committed on or off duty, will be dealt with by the British War Office Claims Commission. The Claims Commission, as hon. Members are well aware, has for some years dealt with claims against the armed forces and other officials in Government service in this country, and during the war it dealt with claims gainst the United States forces in this country. We believe, therefore, that the Claims Commission is particularly well equipped to deal with claims against members of visiting forces, and it is fortunate that it has been possible to make this arrangement."—[Official Report, 17 October 1952; Vol. 505 c. 564–70.]
Is the question that I related to personal injury or damage to property pursued through the War Office Claims Commission? If it is, does the hearing of a case come before that commission, and to what extent are the authorities of foreign service men in this country required to give their evidence? Can legal advice and assistance be provided for those making those claims?
Another question relates to the type of offences covered by the Act. American and English law are not on all fours. Are there offences which we recognise in English courts which do not exist in American law? In such circumstances, is it conceivable that one of my constituents could believe that an offence had been committed against him which did not have its counterpart in American law?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am not a lawyer, but when my hon. Friend talks about American law, does he mean federal law or the criminal laws that apply to individual states in the United States of America, each of which is different?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I should have hoped that the Home Office would consider the federal law, but my hon. Friend asks an important question which I hope the Minister will answer.
Whether or not a person is on duty is important. It is made clear that whether a service man is on duty is a matter for his commanding officer and nobody else. One must ask when "on duty" begins. For instance, if a service man is travelling from his home — many American service men stationed at Greenham live many miles away from the base—is he on duty from the moment he gets into his car to travel to the base or only when he is within the perimeter of the base? By the same token, is he on duty at home, albeit in a reserve capacity? Can my hon. Friend shed light on that?
What is the civilian component to which the Act refers? Does it refer only to those with a job on the base, or do the dependants of an American service man come within the meaning of the words "civilian component"? If they


do, the Act covers many more people than one might suppose. If it applies only to civilians of American origin working on the base, the numbers involved will be few.
My last point is historical. Can my hon. Friend explain whether the powers to waive some of the sections of the Act have been used so that when a case seemed to belong more to the courts of our country, but could be ruled out by the Act, the United States Government chose to allow that case to come before our courts because they thought it was a case of that nature?
I look forward to my hon. Friend's answers on all these points. In concluding my speech I repeat the words of the hon. Member for Fife, Central who said that this is a difficult subject and one on which lawyers are better equipped to speak than mere laymen. Nevertheless, as I have illustrated, my constituents are concerned about the Act and in particular by what may well be unreasonable fears put in their minds by the television programme. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I wish to make a short contribution to this debate because on two occasions recently I asked for a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence about the possibility of people being shot at Greenham common and the implications of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. I can see that, despite staying behind for this debate, I shall not get a statement this evening.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on his brilliant analysis of the Act and on the careful way in which he illustrated each point. I was surprised at the first couple of interventions of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who said that it would not apply to a British soldier if he committed an offence in another state; he would be tried according to the law of that state. The hon. Gentleman also appeared to be asserting either that my hon. Friend's examples were not true—I shall give him the benefit of the doubt that he would not make that allegation—or that my hon. Friend was exaggerating. If my hon. Friend was exaggerating, it is interesting that the cases he quoted are publicly well documented. I have never seen them challenged in literature, whether in the letter columns of newspapers or in journals in which people have an opportunity to reply.
Tonight, along with my hon, Friend the Member for Fife, Central and the hon. Member for Newbury, I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say about the Act. I am not a lawyer, but I have the Act before me and its application appears to be quite simple. Section 3(1) says:
Subject to the provisions of this section, a person charged with an offence againt United Kingdom law shall not be liable to be tried for that offence by a United Kingdom court if at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed he was a member of a visiting force or a member of a civilian component of such a force and—
(a) the alleged offence, if committed by him, arose out of and in the course of his duty".
One does not need to be a QC to understand what that says.
Later in section 3(3)(a) the Act says that nothing in subsection (1)
shall prevent a person from being tried by a United Kingdom court
where

the appropriate authority of the sending country has notified him that it is not proposed to deal with the case under the law of that country".
That appears to be saying what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central said. If a member of a visiting force committed an offence on our soil and was on duty at the time, unless the commander of the visiting force said that he was not going to take proceedings against him, we could not do a thing about it. I could quote a whole series of examples to illustrate that point, but hon. Members will have to study the Act themselves.
Why is it important that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central should draw attention to this Act at this time? First, the installation of cruise missiles has increased the dangers for the people of Britain. As the dangers have increased, so the opposition to the cause of those dangers has increased, as the hon. Member for Newbury knows and is having to experience regularly. We often cite Greenham common as an example of opposition, and I shall use that as my example tonight—because the hon. Member for Newbury is with us—but we can be sure the same sort of thing is happening at other bases.
The opposition is increasing. Fences are being pulled down and wire cutters are being used to get into the base at Greenham common. I and a number of my colleagues visit Greenham common now and then. From talking to the people there, I assure the House that their commitment is deep. The Greenham common women will not go away. They will be there for some time, and the more the danger caused by the weapons escalates, the greater the opposition will become. If the hon. Member for Newbury thinks that he has had enough of the demonstrators, I assure him that he ain't seen nothin' yet, because we are determined—the women and the peace movement in Britain are determined—that we will not be destroyed by nuclear weapons and will do all we can to stop nuclear weapons being used.
There could be two consequences of the opposition that is occurring. We have seen on a number of occasions that the women protesting at Greenham common can enter the base. Two weeks ago I spoke in the House about women having been in the base. Indeed, they spent a considerable time in it and left only because they were bored and cold, and when an Army vehicle came by they jumped on board. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said, in effect, that they could have been anywhere in the base. Nobody knew where they had been. It is clear, therefore, that people will be going into the base. That will make young soldiers edgy and jumpy, especially on dark nights, if they think that unauthorised people are in the base.
The second consequence is that vehicles—the so-called 22-truck convoys—will not be allowed out of the base. As soon as the forces try to drive them out, the demonstrators will show that they are sufficiently committed to stop them leaving. It was said recently—I have never heard such nonsense—that a certain vehicle that left Greenham common was a petrol tanker. I cannot imagine a petrol tanker being covered with tarpaulin, being led by a motor cycle escort and being followed by an Army personnel carrier containing 22 armed soldiers. That vehicle was obviously a missile launcher which was taken out of the base to have its cornering ability tested; it did a quick circuit round part of the base to check its road-holding characteristics.
The road leading to the main entrance at Greenham common base is to have considerable work done to it,


including widening, and I do not doubt that that test run was designed to see what other road works were needed so that, if necessary, vehicles could be driven out in a hurry. I assure the Minister that the forces will have great difficulty in getting them out in a hurry.
The Secretary of State for Defence has made it clear —this is the connection between my remarks and the Visiting Forces Act — that he is prepared to allow unarmed peace protesters to be shot, not only by British forces but by American personnel too. That statement has never been called into question. I do not object to military installations being guarded and protected. Nobody would want to see the kind of thugs who were operating in the streets of London last weekend having easy access to explosive materials. But are we being told that trained soldiers cannot deal with unarmed women without shooting them?
That is a different proposition altogether. The argument that we might shoot them is ridiculous, but on 1 November I asked the Secretary of State to give me a categorical assurance that they would not be shot. He leapt to the Dispatch Box and said:
I shall categorically give no such assurance."— [Official Report, 1 November 1983; Vol. 46, c. 729.]
I know that some Conservative Members were as stunned and surprised as some of my hon. Friends that a Secretary of State could tell the House that unarmed peace protestors were to be shot.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central has already read out some of the contents of the so-called secret document or minute which was circulated to certain Ministers and to the Chief Whip. In that document, again, the Secretary of State is so conscious of the fact that people will be shot that he makes plans to put a line of British troops in front of the American troops in case it is the Americans who do the shooting. That is disgraceful and unacceptable in a civilised country.
Like a number of my hon. Friends, I shall listen very carefully to what the Minister says. No doubt he has access to the secret documents which The Observer and The Guardian get hold of so easily. Perhaps one of his colleagues is circulating them. Perhaps he will tell us that the document was a forgery, but I should like him to say something about the document which was quoted extensively in The Observer last weekend.
We must ask whether the Secretary of State, who is giving permission for the forces to shoot people, is a rational man, capable of making a rational decision. A number of Opposition Members would question whether the right hon. Gentleman is fit to be Secretary of State for Defence. A fictional film was recently shown on television, and the Secretary of State was hysterical in his attempt to put pressure on the media to be allowed to respond to that second rate film. It was not a great film. At best, it was no more than second rate, and it certainly did not illustrate how far a nuclear war would go.
No doubt if the film was to be shown at all, those who made it could not afford to go as far as one would have hoped. The New Statesman said:
In this respect The Day After was much less strong than Peter Watkins's film The War Game, which the BBC (after secret consultation with the government) banned from being televised 18 years ago.
I have put down an early-day motion calling on the BBC to show "The War Game" now that the independent

televison authorities have shown their equivalent. I hope that some Conservative Members will show their agreement by signing it.
The New Statesman is a respectable and moderate journal. Its editorials are taken seriously. What does the New Statesman say about the Secretary of State for Defence? It says:
The Secretary of State, however, has not had mixed reviews. Michael Heseltine made a plain fool of himself over the whole episode. Since the main part of Mrs. Thatcher's brief to him when she gave him Defence was public relations, this is an uncovenanted bonus for the peace movement.
The Secretary of State has made a fool of himself over a fictional film. Is such a man fit to be in a responsible position, when we may find ourselves under attack by an enemy? The people of Britain have no confidence in the right hon. Gentleman. We regret very much his reaction to a film of dubious quality.
Two things must be done urgently. First, the Secretary of State for Defence should be sacked. He is not fit to hold such a position. The Visiting Forces Act 1952 leaves too many questions unanswered. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central has given enough examples to justify at least a review of the Act. Secondly, I believe that we should have a new Act to replace this one, which gives freedom to visiting forces to commit offences without appropriate punishment.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on raising this subject at such an appropriate time. It is important given the changed circumstances since the Act was passed, particularly within the past few months.
The problems covered by the Act have changed and the whole subject has become much more sensitive in recent months. It is not being anti-American to say so. I should have thought that the American forces, which are covered by the legislation, would welcome the debate because they are in a difficult position at the moment. Amendments to the legislation might benefit not just this country and its people but also the American forces.
As I understand it, the Visiting Forces Act 1952 derives from an agreement regarding the status of forces of parties to the North Atlantic treaty of June 1951, Cmnd. 9633. I shall quote from article VII, which seems to be clearer than the Act in explaining the point at issue this evening. Paragraph 3 states:
In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:
(a) The Military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a force or of a civilian component in relation to …
(ii) offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.
That appears to be the nub of the case advanced so clearly by my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central and for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). I noted the comments made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). He had a different point of view, although he drew attention to a number of significant points of civil law arising from the position of American forces in this country. In the main, he took a different line about the significance of the events of Greenham common and the base.
I have been worried about this legislation for some time. I have asked to visit the Greenham common base.


It is surprising, however, that when there is such legislation the Government have not so far allowed Members of Parliament to visit the Greenham common defence establishment. I find that puzzling, because I wanted to discuss the position of American forces in this country with American personnel there and what might happen if they were involved in incidents at the base. If the Minister doubts my assertion that it has so far not proved possible for Members of Parliament to visit the base, he should study the answers to one or two of my parliamentary questions. In the first instance, the Secretary of State for Defence referred me to his junior Minister and said that arrangements were made with him. Secondly, I was told that the possibility of visiting the base was being considered, but no date was given.
I put a similar question to the Leader of the House when he was standing in for the Prime Minister. He said that he would consider the matter. So far, we have heard nothing. We have had no first-hand opportunity to visit such bases to discuss with British and American military personnel the implications of the working of the Visiting Forces Act 1952, in particular the part that I quoted from the treaty that gave rise to the Act. That is my first criticism of the Act. It is scandalous that Members of Parliament are not allowed by the British Government to visit a military base, which is part British and part American, when it is normally within the conventions and traditions of Parliament for us to visit all defence establishments within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Boyes: Did my hon. Friend see the news item about the previous protest at Greenham common? That film clearly identified Lady Olga Maitland inside the fence, yet I have had the same experience as my hon. Friend and have not been allowed through the gate.

Mr. Dubs: Although I did not see that television film, I noticed news items saying that Lady Olga Maitland had secured access to the defence establishment. My hon. Friend tried unsuccessfully to gain access on a visit there and I asked Ministers bluntly in the House whether it was possible for us to gain entry, but so far I have had no clear answer.
I have had a chance to visit Greenham common from the outside and to talk to the women there. I asked them how much the American troops were in evidence and was gratified to hear that they had had nothing to do with American troops. The only incident to which they referred concerned the police and British troops stationed there, and they said that American troops had stayed well in the background. That is both good and desirable, but it does not get away from the key issues about that defence establishment.
However, the women complained about abuse from one or two members of the British troops. Although that is not a matter for the Minister who will reply to the debate, it is regrettable that some of the remarks made to the women were very abusive and not in keeping with a disciplined army, which is our tradition.
During my visit I was astonished at the defences there. The double lines of barbed wire and the lookout posts were more reminiscent of the Berlin wall than anything we are used to in Britain. Clearly, it is an attempt to keep British people from the missiles and to keep American troops from demonstrators against the missiles, or those who are against the presence of American troops.
There are two ways in which the Visiting Forces Act can be brought into action in the Greenham common establishment, both of which have been referred to briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central. The first concerns further possible demonstrations there —I am sure that there will be others. On the previous occasion some of the fences were torn down in about eight places by women using their bare hands. The gates could be used as access points. Despite the efforts of the police and military authorities, American troops might become involved in such a demonstration and commit offences under British law, but, because they were on duty at the time, the Visiting Forces Act 1952 would apply and British law would not apply.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Labour party supports the tearing down of the wire barrier by the women at Greenham common and the injuries to the police inspector resulting from that?

Mr. Dubs: I am not saying anything of the kind. I regret that the police inspector was injured on that occasion, and also that some of the women were injured. It is the democratic right of people in this country to demonstrate. It is a long-established right, and the vast majority of the women demonstrating at Greenham common seven or eight days ago were behaving peacefully. Peaceful protest is still legal and permissible in Britain—[Interruption.] I understand fully why the issue, and this debate, is embarrassing to Conservative Members. They are uncomfortable at having to take a position that is completely against the interests and the wishes of the majority of British people. I understand why they are now trying to make comments that are not directly related to my points.
There is a danger implicit in the sensitivity of the position at Greenham common that American troops and British people might come into conflict in that area.
The second scenario, which was mentioned briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, was the possibility that some of the cruise missile launchers might leave the base. There is a rumour that one such launcher left the base recently. I do not know whether that is true, but I understand from what Ministers have said that it will be necessary, for operational reasons —if one believes in the policy of cruise missiles— for those missile launchers to leave the base at intervals and to drive round the countryside to test the vehicles and to get the entire system operational.
There is a clear possibility of conflict between the American forces driving the missile launchers round Berkshire and local people, whether demonstrators or others. We shall have the sight of those large vehicles attempting to leave the base —obviously some of the demonstrating women will try to stop them — and offences may be committed by the American troops during military manoeuvres. My concern is that the Visiting Forces Act 1952 will be brought into play, and that the result will be that British courts will have no jurisdiction over the actions of American troops in such circumstances.
The case for reconsidering this Act is solid. At the very least, it needs amendment, and we should consider whether all the nuclear bases in Britain should be removed from the scope of the Act and whether American troops should come under British legislation. I am satisfied that


my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central, have made out an excellent case for saying that the Act is of doubtful use at present. We should reconsider it and amend it, otherwise there will be enormous dangers in bases such as Greenham common.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): This debate was triggered by a spate of publicity, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) acknowledged, in the BBC programme "60 Minutes", in the columns of the New Statesman and, for all I know, elsewhere about the Visiting Forces Act 1952. Many of the comments had the effect of casting the presence and activities of United States service men in the United Kingdom in a lurid light, and perhaps they were calculated to do just that.
However, I welcome the opportunity to give the House the facts about the Act in a balanced way, and I wish to build on the foundation of common sense erected by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) in his speech and to say to him that I hope to answer many of his points. He knows that my door is always open to him and that he can always pursue with me matters that affect his constituents.
I am sure that a majority of hon. Members realise only too well that American forces have been in the United Kingdom for more than 40 years. Their presence has been beneficial to the United Kingdom both as staunch allies in the war and defenders of peace through the NATO Alliance thereafter. Their presence has also been largely uncontroversial, and rightly so. For over 30 years, the framework of the criminal law within which they operate and other important matters have been covered by the Visiting Forces Act 1952. It is important that we should know something of the history of that Act. It has an impeccably bipartisan pedigree, as I shall show. As I shall also demonstrate, there is no commonsense reason why that bipartisanship should come to an end, although there may be strong political reasons why some hon. Members are keen to ruffle the surface of what have otherwise been, on the whole, relatively calm waters.
The NATO Alliance requires that troops of several Alliance nations are stationed in other Alliance countries. The NATO agreement was concluded in London in 1951 and signed—the hon. Member for Fife, Central did not tell us this—by Herbert Morrison, a representative of the then Labour Government. It was concluded between the NATO states and agreed on by the NATO allies. The 1952 Act of the incoming Conservative Government gave effect to the provisions of that agreement in United Kingdom law and allowed the Government to go to ratify the agreement in 1954. Apart from a modification to deal with hijacking, the Act has been untouched for the past 30 years. It has survived Labour and Conservative Governments alike — rightly so, as I hope to demonstrate.
As has been made clear in other speeches, the important sections of the Act are sections 2 and 3. Section 2 deals with jurisdiction. It enables the courts and authorities of the visiting force to exercise in the United Kingdom the ordinary powers of discipline and administration necessary to preserve the good order of the force. I am sure that there is no dispute over the need for that as it is essential for a

military force to be able to maintain discipline if it is to be an effective force. It is clearly sensible for foreign service men visiting a country to serve under their own code of discipline rather than that of the receiving state. We maintain forces abroad as well as being hosts here. The 1951 agreement provides the basis on which we can maintain discipline in our forces serving in other NATO countries. The section does not create jurisdiction but merely enables the courts and authorities of the visiting force to exercise in our territory the jurisdiction that their law gives them over persons subject to their jurisdiction.
Thus, when a visiting service man commits an act that is an offence against the law of his own country but is not against the law of the country in which he is stationed the authorities of the visiting force have exclusive jurisdiction. Conversely, if he commits an act that is an offence against the law of the country in which he is stationed but is not against the law of his own country — I am on the territory that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury wished me to explore—the authorities of the country in which he is stationed have exclusive jurisdiction. If, however, a visiting service man commits an act that is an offence against the law of both the sending country and the United Kingdom, the jurisdiction of the courts of the visiting force is concurrent — I stress the word "concurrent"—with that of the United Kingdom courts. Where concurrent jurisdiction arises, the arrangements for determining which court will deal with the case are set out in section 3 of the Act.
Section 3 gives effect to article VII 3(a) of the Status of Forces Agreement 1951 and provides that in most cases United Kingdom courts will have primary rights to deal with offences committed by visiting service men that infringe United Kingdom laws. As I shall later demonstrate, that aspect will deal with most of the points that have troubled the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury.
The only exceptions to this general rule occur in circumstances where the offence arose out of and in the course of duty, or it was committed solely against persons or property associated with the visiting force. In such cases, the primary jurisdiction is exercised by the authority of the visiting force, but the United Kingdom courts have a secondary right of jurisdiction. They may exercise that right if the authorities of the visiting force decide not to exercise their primary right of jurisdiction and deal with the case under their law.
There has been a suggestion in some quarters that United States service men are above the law and can act irresponsibly and get away with it. That is categorically not the case. In 1982, more than 2,100 United States service men—this may comfort the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury—were convicted in United Kingdom courts, about 2,000 of them for traffic offences. By comparison, in the same year about 1,500 United Kingdom service men were tried in Germany for motoring offences by the German courts. It is instructive to look at the balance of work in the two courts given that there are twice as many British soldiers in Germany as there are United States troops in the United Kingdom. The figures hardly show that the United Kingdom courts are not dealing with offences committed by United States troops. In no sense are United States military personnel above the law.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for nearly half an hour and is now spending most of his time during my speech muttering from a sedentary position. I do not intend to give way as this is a timed debate. My hon. Friends and I have been hearing the hon. Gentleman mutter. I shall answer the debate without, I hope, too many unnecessary interruptions from him.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Tell the whole truth.

Mr. Mellor: Turning to serious crime, which has rightly been raised in the debate, in the past two years there have been 27 instances of serious offences of violence committed by United States military personnel against United Kingdom citizens. For the avoidance of doubt, may I say that most occurred in pub and disco fights. All of these incidents—I stress, all of these—were dealt with by the United Kingdom courts. Five American service men are presently in our prisons.
It has been said that United States service men are immune from appearing before any British court, criminal or civil, if they can claim to be on duty at the time. I wish to clarify what that means, I hope helpfully, especially bearing in mind the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. I assure him that there is no question of the United States authorities claiming that their service men are on duty willy nilly regardless of the facts. That is not the case.
I accept that the case raised by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, which took place in August 1965, involving a Mrs. MacDonald, could bear an unfortunate interpretation on that issue. I assure the House that the United States authorities would not now regard, and have not regarded for some considerable time, a service man driving to and from his base in his own car as being on duty and therefore susceptible to their jurisdiction and not ours. We would not stand idly by and not make representations were such a position to arise.
In cases where the alleged offender claims to have been on duty, the primary jurisdiction is exercised by the authorities of the visiting force. The United Kingdom courts have a secondary right of jurisdiction which they may exercise if the authorities of the visiting force decide not to exercise their primary right of jurisdiction. In no sense can someone get away with it without a hearing being held by either the British or American courts. Where it may be thought that the individual concerned is on duty and therefore susceptible to the United States regime and not to ours, the United Kingdom prosecuting authorities are entitled—this is specifically set out in article VII 3(c) of the 1951 agreement—to ask the visiting state to waive its primary right where the issue seems to be of special importance. That deals with the serious matters that have been raised.
I have been dealing in the main with criminal law, but it is crucial that we do not forget civil law. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury raised that point. Civil law is vital to an individual and his dependants if he has been injured by the negligence or default of a United States service man. His full civil entitlements are protected.
On the crucial question of compensation, article VIII of the agreement sets out the obligations of the contracting parties. In the United Kingdom, the claims commission deals with any claims made against visiting forces. If a claim is admitted and the damages are agreed, the damages

are paid by the Secretary of State for Defence as a successor in title to the Secretary of State for War under the authority of section 9 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952.
If the claim is not admitted, a United Kingdom claimant has a right to bring proceedings in the United Kingdom courts against a member of the visiting force concerned, just as he can if he is dissatisfied with the financial arrangements offered to him by the claims commission. Any judgment obtained would be discharged by the Secretary of State for Defence. If a settlement is arrived at without proceeding to trial, payment will also be made by the Secretary of State.
In accordance with paragraph 5 of article VIII. 75 per cent. of any award is recovered from the sending state. The court will deal with the matter as in any similar hearing between two United Kingdom citizens where a tort has been committed, or where there is a dispute that a tort has been committed and the claimant is a citizen of the United Kingdom and the defendant a member of the United Kingdom Armed Forces. I hope that that information is sufficient for the House to be in no doubt about the position.
I want to give the House some facts about how the civil claim arrangements have worked during the past five years. The claims commission has handled about 430 claims a year against United States service men. all of which have involved road traffic accidents. In each year about 15 cases have involved personal injury, but not more than two fatal injuries. The majority of cases are settled amicably out of court.
There has also been an accusation that the United Kingdom is a soft touch, that United States forces in other NATO countries are treated more toughly by the authorities, and that British forces overseas are subject to more vigorous rules than their United States counterparts in Britain. That is absolutely not the case.
The United Kingdom has clone nothing that is not fully reciprocated by other states that are party to the 1951 agreement. I have already given the revealing comparison between cases against United States service men in the United Kingdom and those against United Kingdom service men in the German courts. The 1952 Act is not administered at arm's length between United Kingdom and United States authorities. It is not the case that the Americans might take a view that a service man was on duty and that that was the end of the matter.
The 1952 Act is administered by a continuous and constructive dialogue. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence would want to look carefully at any details suggesting that something has gone amiss. If he was persuaded that there was a difficulty, he would raise that with the American authorities.
Generally, if an incident occurs outside a United States base, the police will investigate the matter and inform the United States authorities if they consider it appropriate to institute proceedings. If the United States authorities claim primary jurisdiction, for example, on the grounds that the incident took place during official duties, the police would not normally pursue the matter further, unless—I stress this—they considered the claim of the United States authorities to exercise jurisdiction to be unreasonable. In that event they will report the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the DPP shares the concern of the police, the action of the United States authorities is likely to be to bring the matter to the notice of the Home Office. It would then be for my right hon. and learned Friend the


Home Secretary, in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to make representations to the United States authorities at diplomatic level.
It is inevitable—we have heard about this from some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Fife, Central — that over 30 years with hundreds, if not thousands, of cases of one type or another arising each year, there have been some unhappy cases. I accept that, but overall it is clear beyond peradventure that the Act has worked well and can continue to work well. It has done so without widespread acrimony or any of the general unfairness that some hon. Members have sought to contend arises by giving a rather partial account of one or two hard cases.
I am not here to answer for the Ministry of Defence. I am a Home Office Minister, but, inevitably, a great deal has been said about Greenham common. That matter has been discussed at great length by some hon. Gentlemen. Under the Act, we are concerned by and large with motoring and occasionally other offences committed away from the base. During the past 30 years, that is the generality of the cases that have fallen within the ambit of the Act.
I repudiate the suggestion that the Act provides immunity to United States service men who may fire upon civilian demonstrators. The use of firearms by United States service men, just as with United Kingdom service men, is governed by rules of engagement designed to ensure that fire is opened only in accordance with the law of the land and the doctrine of the minimum force that is necessary and reasonable to protect life and vital installations. In case there is any doubt about the circumstances in which that might occur, I confirm that there is no possibility of United States service men opening fire in the vicinity of demonstrators on the fringes of nuclear bases. There are a number of security personnel who can, and will, deal with those demonstrators without armed force.
All our efforts are designed to ensure that demonstrators cannot put themselves into a position where they might

face any danger of being in an area where service men would have to consider using firearms. I go so far as to say that if a person has reached the area where that possibility arises, it will be clear that he or she is not in the business of peacefully demonstrating against cruise missiles. If he or she has reached that point, it will be clear that there is an intention to interfere with a nuclear warhead. In that context, I believe that I carry the House with me in saying that firearms should be available for use strictly as a last resort, and I hope that those remarks will be of assistance to those who raised those matters.
I have noted the concern expressed by hon. Members about some aspects of the operation of the Act, and we are in no sense complacent about it. In giving what I believe to be a fair account of its workings, I hope that that has been clear. It is apparent that most of the concern derives from the interpretation which it is feared United States authorities may in some cases place upon the issue of jurisdiction, especially in relation to the question of what may or may not constitute official duty. I shall ensure that the points made by hon. Members are drawn to the attention of the competent United States authorities. In addition, I emphasise that the Government's intention—if any case arises in which the United States authorities appear to be adopting what seems to be an unreasonably extensive interpreation of what constitutes official duty — is to make the most strenuous representations to ensure that the spirit, as well as the letter, of the NATO agreement is fully respected. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury will convey that message loud and clear to his constituents as they are entitled to know where we stand on this.
More generally, we shall be prepared to make representations to the United States authorities if other aspects of any case give cause for concern. I believe that in general the 1951 agreement and the 1952 Act have for 30 years provided a workable and satisfactory basis for foreign forces in this country. Nevertheless, we shall keep their operation under close scrutiny and shall not hesitate to act whenever we consider that there are grounds for doing so.

South-West Region

Sir Peter Mills: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the problems experienced in the south-west of England. I am glad that so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends as well as Opposition Members are present to take part in this debate. I am also pleased to see that the Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), is here to reply to this regional debate as none is more qualified than he to do so.
When I say that the south-west has urgent problems, I in no way seek to belittle the area or to suggest that it is desperate in any way. Nevertheless, serious difficulties need to be highlighted and dealt with by the Government. That is the reason for this debate. No doubt my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members will fill in many of the details that I omit.
As a west country man, I am proud of the south-west. It is a grand place to live in and to represent. In this context, I am reminded of the old joke about the candidate addressing a big meeting who said, "I was born in Devon, brought up in Devon and educated in Devon. My children were raised in Devon. I have worked in Devon all my life" —at which point a voice from the back of the hall said, "Have you no ambition?" We certainly have ambition in Devon—to overcome the problems and difficulties that we now face.
First and foremost, I wish to highlight the problems faced by local councils. The Government's expenditure cuts are causing great problems and dismay. Whatever my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may argue, there is a real feeling of injustice. Although I am right behind my right hon. Friend in curbing public expenditure, especially in some councils and areas, I believe that local authorities which have played their part and have tried to cut back and to put their houses in order should not be further penalised and that some formula must be found to assist such councils. There is a definite sense of injustice and grievance about a real problem which will not go away unless something is done.
Devon county council states in its excellent brief:
Devon's services suffer from under-financing in the past and from present expenditure targets being based directly on those past low levels. A wide gap exists between the target for 1984–85 and Grant-Related Expenditure for that year; the first is about £301 million and the second £316 million. RSG penalties exist of course for spending above target, and as a result service expenditure is 'squeezed'. Devon is having to reduce its budget for 1984–85 by £4 million to remain within even 1 per cent. above target, as the new high levels of penalty cannot be afforded. The County is therefore being penalised for expenditure at a level below which even the Government considers necessary by the GRE formula.
Even that formula fails to take adequate account of the sparsity factor which features so prominently in the brief that the council has provided. I understand Devon county council's problem and hope that my right hon. Friend can reassure us in that regard. I must warn him and the Government that many of us are considering carefully what will happen in the future and how we support the Government in these matters. The issue should be clarified far more.
Communications in the south-west, especially roads, are extremely important. If there is one Member of Parliament who has suffered from roads and the problems

of bypasses, it must be the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West. We believe that, if the A30 from Whid.don Down to Launceston and then on to Penzance were completed quickly, it would have a major impact in the region. If one thing would transform circumstances in the south-west, it would be the completion of that road. If I were given a choice between that road and any other Government initiative or action, I should go for the road every time. I am sure that I carry many of my right hon. and hon. Friends in that.
We need the A30 to be made a dual carriageway throughout its length. It is a bit of nonsense for it to be dual carriageway to Okehampton bypass, then suddenly become single carriageway to Launceston and then to become dual carriageway again. We must speed the building up. Thank goodness that tomorrow it will be announced that the Whiddon Down, the Okehampton or the Sticklepath part will be done. We need it to be completed as quickly as possible.
I also agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in that we should get the spur road to north Devon built as quickly as possible. If that road and the A30 were built, the scene in the south west would be transformed. As a railway enthusiast, I naturally want the railways, especially branch lines, to continue. I hope for a proper solution. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North would also want Chivenor to he made an air link to north Devon from London. Plans for such an air link exist. I hope that they come to fruition and that the Ministry of Defence will not sabotage such small efforts to bring an airline to north Devon.
I am sure that the House will be glad to learn that I shall not speak for long on agriculture. One of the problems with what has recently happened in Athens and Brussels is that uncertainty has been created for the agricultural industry. Some politicians, and certainly urban people, believe that it is possible to turn food production on and off like a tap. They believe that it is possible to achieve production just when it is wanted and then stop it again. That is not so. I remind such right hon. and hon. Members and other politicians that it takes nine months to produce a calf. That is only the start. Any delay in knowing where farmers stand creates uncertainty for British agriculture, especially for the south west. If there are to be cuts we must know about them so that we can adjust accordingly. That is only fair.
With regard to industry, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's announcement that there might be changes to the boundaries of improvement areas is a golden opportunity. I am sure that it is worth re-examining those boundaries so that we can be more flexible. There are some areas that do not need full status, while others desperately do. I quote again from the brief from Devon county council, which highlights an important point. It says:
Both the UK Government's and the EEC's regional policy is of crucial importance to the region … and the very recent White Paper on regional policy will encourage vigorous and well-founded local responses—hopefully successful responses.
The counties' current assisted area status is also very important to them in attracting EEC, especially Regional Development Fund, grants. ERDF grants to Devon and Cornwall have totalled £36 million to date, and the future relationship between the new UK regional map and access to EEC funds requires urgent clarification.
This is a point that the Minister will have to clarify tonight.


the future relationship between the new UK regional map and access to EEC funds.
is an important point.
I shall not delay the House much longer because I am delighted to know that there are so many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House from the southwest who wish to speak, but I shall highlight two points. One is that of retired people in the south-west. We welcome them, but there is no doubt that they create many problems—the problems of our social services, of our hospitals and the whole business of care. While we welcome them, we need the funds to be able to look after them.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) will probably accept that the most important responsibility that we can have is the looking after of the elderly. With that in mind, and bearing in mind that the figures for Devon show that over the next 10 years there will be a 16 per cent. increase of those who are 75 plus, and that in my constituency an average of 27 per cent. of the population is of retired age rather than the national average of 18 per cent., does my hon. Friend agree that such responsibilities carry with them a regional element? One cannot provide proper care for such elderly people simply by equalising us with other areas. Is there not a regional dimension?

Sir Peter Mills: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said, and he has expressed it far better than I did. That is the point, and this is the problem, with which we hope that the Minister will be able to help us. These elderly people are not a problem to us, in the sense that we welcome them in the south-west, but their presence there is expensive and we have to have sufficient funds to deal with this.
There is also the problem of our rural scene. This is a delicate subject because there is bound to be a clash of interest in the south-west. There is tourism, agriculture, industry and retired people, and those who want to live on fresh air and a view. It is a difficult business to get the balance right. There is a clash, as there is over Dartmoor and other areas. While this is hardly a problem with which the Government can deal, I hope that those of us who live in the south-west can be patient and take a balanced view. We all have to live in the south-west, and that means that we cannot always get our own way over certain matters —a balance has to be struck between those who want industry, agriculture or tourism, and those who want to leave it just as it is.
I am grateful for this opportunity to highlight a few of the problems of the south-west. If I had the powers of a dictator I should choose the one thing that would transform the whole of the south-west in so many ways—to get the communications right, particularly the spine road right the way through and to north Devon. If the Minister can promise me that tonight, I shall go away a happy man.

Mr. David Penhaligon: This is a welcome opportunity to discuss the problems of the south-west. I was pleased to co-operate with the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) in achieving the luck of the draw, in the way these matters are arranged in the House.
This is bound to be an itsy-bitsy debate. I suspect that a number of issues will be raised, and that when the

Minister replies he will have to put on the cap of the all-knowing Minister tonight to cover them all. Not the least of the problems is the sheer size of the south-western economic planning area, which I take to be the definition for our debate. I am always upset to realise that, if one is at the very north of that planning area, one is 10 miles nearer the Scottish border than to Land's End.
Looking at the area from my part of the world, we are somewhat disenchanted with it. The statistics for Cornwall —and, indeed, Devon—are often lost in what is, after all, the relative prosperity of the Bristol, Gloucester, Cheltenham area. It is tempting to take advantage of this debate to make a general criticism of the Government's economic strategy, but I shall not do so. Instead, I shall raise a number of specific matters and seek the Minister's guidance on them.
The first matter of concern, certainly in Cornwall, is unemployment. The situation is bad, statistically and emotionally. It is true that, in the past five years, unemployment in Cornwall has increased by less than it has in some other parts of the country. Indeed, it has increased by less than it has increased in the country as a whole. However, that is only a reflection of other areas overtaking Cornwall in unemployment, because there has been no improvement at all in my area. The reason is not unfamiliar. Cornwall has a thin industrial base, the main job loss has been within industry, and the number of jobs lost has often been related to how important the industrial base was to the local economy.
Male unemployment in my county is not much short of 20 per cent. We become used to that figure at this time of the year. The following employment exchanges have male unemployment of more than 20 per cent. —Falmouth, Helston, Liskeard, Looe, Newquay, Penzance, St. Ives and Wadebridge. The trophy taker—if that is the word for such statistics—is St. Ives, with 30·8 per cent. male unemployment. It is therefore extremely important to the far west that we do not lose our development status, and that the areas are not changed to the south-west's disadvantage. Although we have not solved all our difficulties, we have made some progress.
My former employers—not in my constituency, but important to the county—Compair—or Holman Bros., as it was called when I was there—said that if the criteria had been changed they could not have modernised their plant. Without the aid of development grants, they would have been forced to move the company, with its great history in Cornwall as a manufacturer of mining equipment, out of the south-west up to the parent company at High Wycombe. The devastation that that would have brought to Camborne and Redruth and areas beyond that is difficult to describe.
That company is not alone. A number of companies — sometimes we underestimate the benefit of the development arrangements — say that the system has helped them to build on what they already had and to maintain their presence in the more remote parts of our country.
We have a record of attracting industry. My constituency has attracted a lot of printing works. I suspect that that is not just as a result of development status but has something to do with the union that has become rather famous lately. For all that, printing is now a major part of the local economy of my constituency, employing several


hundred people. It is high technology printing, and, but for the grants, there is no doubt that the works would not have come to the area.
The most interesting aspect of the recent statement on development, having expressed the fear about boundaries, was the assertion that it would in future move into services. It was vague as to what was meant by "moving into services", and when pressed the Minister was not exactly forthcoming about the definition that he might apply. He implied that we could not extend the provision to all service industries, but it was difficult to tell which will benefit.
I suggest some criteria for the Minister's consideration. Any service industry which is an important part of the modern manufacturing process should benefit from development status. For example, a business providing computer programmes will not benefit from development arrangements. Development aid should be extended to cover modern manufacturing methods. Anything that saves the balance of payments should be considered. In my area that includes tourism, which plays a massive part in the economy of the far west.
I have never understood why we should give so much money to people who manufacture new articles when someone who repairs or renovates articles produced a few years ago receives no assistance. From my background I know that some companies rewind electric motors but receive no assistance, but the company that produces the new electric motors does receive assistance. That seems archaic.
It is difficult to believe that the Departments have no idea of how far they will go. Perhaps the Minister can give some idea of how the Government's mind is drifting in connection with the welcome extension of development aid.
Once again, perhaps not fruitfully, I suggest that aid should include mining. Because a mine is not mobile it does not qualify for development aid. The far south-west has long been fascinated by that. Mining is one of our most obvious productive industries, yet it is selected not to receive aid. If I can attract a wigwam factory to my constituency from the Scottish borders, it will be given aid, but if someone wishes to open a tin, copper, lead or tungsten mine in my county it will not receive aid. That is nonsense. I cannot believe that many hon. Members will defend that. We have put up with that for too long.
The importance of minerals to the far south-west is underestimated. If the highly efficient and highly profitable china clay industry were taken from my constituency, our economic base would be weak indeed. It employes about 4,000 people. Not many industries in the area employ that many, or more profitably. I urge the Minister once again to look at that. I am not full of hope because I have asked him before, but the nonsense is difficult to justify.
Instead of considering employment alone, the Government should examine activity rates when judging their criteria. The female unemployment figures in the south-east are only a little worse than the national average. That disguises the fact that the women in Cornwall who wish to work have never been able to find work, and do not regard themselves as unemployed. I challenge the Minister to publish female activity rates in some parts of the far south-west. I am sure that he will be impressed by the figures. The unemployment figures are meaningless.

That is not unique to the far south-west, but it should he taken into consideration when important decisions are made about development status.
As the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West said, if we are ever to solve our unemployment problems, communications are important. The most important road improvement in Cornwall is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I know that that will sound slightly Irish, but that is the position. I still hope to be able to raise an Adjournment debate to challenge the responsible Minister on the standard to which the road is being built. I have put in five bids, so far unsuccessfully, but one lives in hope. It needs to be built and built rapidly.
However, on communications, I should appreciate some observations from the Minister on the deterioration of the south-west railway, which has now reached a deplorable state. Obviously one is more familiar with the times that trains leave one's home town than anywhere else, but I will tell the Minister the times that trains leave Truro to come to Paddington. There is one train at 5.37 am. I have not caught that train often. There is another one at 7.4 am, which I have been forced to catch on the odd occasion. The next one is at 9.6 am and the next one is 10.10 am. About what, the House may ask. am I complaining? It is 10 am and already four trains have gone from Truro to Paddington. I am complaining about the fact that there is only one more train for the entire day, and that leaves Truro at 5.5 pm. If one misses the 10.10 am from Truro to Paddington, the next one is 5.5 pm, which is the lot until the night sleeper.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Although I have been reminded by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I am comparatively new to the west country, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not agree that not only are there gaps in the train service but the trains do not run on time? The biggest problem facing the west country is that the trains tend to run between 15 minutes and 45 minutes late. They not only run late but a great number of them do not stop at the stations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) will know that a great number of the trains go through his station at high speed, and also the station serving South Hams at Totnes. They just do not stop there, although they arrive late where they are going.

Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) will know that the Cornish have a fairly flexible attitude to time. I was brought up with a marvellous word called "directly". It will arrive "d'rectly". Anything that will arrive "d'rectly" may arrive the next minute or in half an hour. On the whole, my constituents are satisfied if it arrives at all. There are no trains between 10.10 am and 5 pm. There are five through trains from Truro to Paddington four of which have left by 10.10 am. That is asinine. It fits into the great fear that is expressed about the railway in Cornwall— not that a will be closed; that was a red herring and I never did believe that the Conservative Government would close the railway line in Cornwall; I never believed that, I never argued that or raised it within my county — but that Cornwall will be come a mere branch line to the main railway starting at Plymouth. This gradual deterioration is part of that. It is true that one can catch a train between those times by going to Plymouth and changing and then going on to Paddington.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): Can the hon. Gentleman say how many people catch those five trains from Truro to Paddington, so that I have an idea of the passenger market?

Mr. Penhaligon: I have never walked up and down and counted them, but I can tell the Secretary of State—other Members besides me come up from the south-west —that it is not unusual to see, at least as far as Exeter, people sitting in the corridors of some of the trains going downwards. Coming up, obviously, the problem occurs in the opposite direction. I urge the Minister to obtain the figures because the trains are used far more than his question implies.
But even if the figures for Cornwall, from the point of view of financial return for the railways, were bad, trains are more important to the far south-west than purely monetary calculations might lead one to believe. Frankly, if the railways in Cornwall were abandoned completely, the psychological and emotional effect on the people there — the feeling that they had been abandoned by all —would be absolutely catastrophic. We fear that we are seeing the gradual deterioration of our service and that Cornwall will become merely a branch line.
I come to the question of summer lets and housing in general. I have raised this issue on the Floor of the House many times. Indeed, I think that I can claim to be almost the only hon. Member who raises it. I refer to the number of properties that are let by the week during the summer months in my part of the country, and a Government announcement has been made which is worrying me greatly. It has been stated that in the next Finance Bill the Government will, after considerable lobbying by the summer let industry, extend capital gains tax relief and relief on the replacement of business assets to those who run summer lets as a business and will call the income made from summer lets earned income for tax purposes.
That has been heralded in the west country as massive help towards that industry, and clearly it is. Exactly how much it is worth I cannot calculate, despite having made considerable efforts so to do. Have the Government carefully thought out the consequences of substantially increasing the tax help that is given to those who run summer lets in my area? There are already in my constituency villages in which nearly 20 per cent. of the houses are empty for nine months of the year. Yet we seem to be moving towards the position in which those who let houses in the summer by the week, as opposed to those who let their properties on a permanent basis, will receive a tax incentive from the Government for doing that.
I have already been approached by a couple of moderate-sized landlords in my constituency—and I am currently in correspondence with the Chancellor on the issue — who have always been against letting their property by the week during the summer because, they say, they can see the agony of the housing crisis that that creates. But they have asked whether they would be considered to be sane if they continued to insist on letting their properties on a permanent basis, given the massive tax advantages resulting from letting by the week. When I have raised this issue it has received only a little publicity in the south-west, but I have received mail bags full of correspondence.
On the whole, those who own summer let properties are not keen on my argument, and that is not surprising. But many people — hotel and caravan site owners, for

example—point out that they are in business competing with let-by-the-week properties, and they are rated as businesses and must obtain planning consent and obey all the regulations applying to businesses.
I have a solution to the problem and an answer to the dilemma that the Government are about to create for themselves. I should be happy to see such tax concessions offered provided that letting properties by the week was made subject to planning consent. In other words, if people run such properties as a business, let them be treated as a business and subject to the planning consent procedure. At the moment, in my seaside resorts, if you want to change your house into a fish and chip shop, a pub or a vegetable shop you have to get planning consent, but if you want to change a normal hereditament to a house that is let by the week during the summer, no permission has to be obtained, and the new business is not rated for that purpose. That is an anomaly that the Government could solve at a stroke of the pen. I seek an assurance that if these tax reliefs are to be granted, and if the properties are to be treated as businesses, the obvious quid pro quo should be exacted and they should be made subject to planning consent. There is no reason why the Government should not accept that. If they do not do so, the problem in the far south-west will not go away — it will get worse and it will be seen to get worse, because of the tax concessions granted to those who let by the week.
When my regional colleagues explain the great concession in the Western Morning News, I wonder whether they are fully aware of its knock-on effect. I accept that this is not fully within the sphere of the Secretary of State for Employment, but I ask the Minister either to give me a reply or to raise the question within the internal machinations of the Government to get an official view.
In my constituency 120 families are living in temporary accommodation and awaiting permanent housing. I suspect that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has a similar number. The housing crisis in the south-west is a fact. I fear that it will not go away, and that if the tax concession is granted it will get significantly worse.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West referred to the rates. No one could accuse Cornwall county council of overspending. The general routine is that if something ought to cost a quid, the council will try to do it for 50p and will allocate 30p. Some of the facilities in my constituency certainly look as though they were provided on that method.
As was recently announced from the Dispatch Box, the GRE is the Government's estimate of a reasonable level of expenditure to maintain the social fabric in any given area. Last year the GRE for Cornwall was f138.28 million. The country actually spent 133·10 million—a good £5·1 million below the Government's own estimate of what would be reasonable. Cornwall's reward was to be fined £800,000 for overspending. In Devon the figures are not quite as favourable, but Devon county council is below the GRE, as are most of the county authorities in the south-west.
There are many supporters of the Government on the county council, but much anger is felt on councils that have obeyed every single Government diktat and never once overspent, according to the criteria issued by the Government, and that clearly have a very low level of expenditure on the social fabric — a disastrously low


level in some areas. For the Government to fine low-spending councils for their economy seems bonkers beyond belief. This year the Government are to allow the county to increase its budget by 3 per cent. That is a 2 or 3 per cent. cut in real terms, and I do not know where it is to come from. My county sees how some other authorities ovespend, and its anger is likely to increase and increase as time goes by.
There may seem to be little connection between the points that I have made, but they are all-important to the south-west, and I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to some of them. I have mentioned employment, summer lets, railway services and rates. Those are all issues that currently occupy the minds of those in the far south-west. The thought that hon. Members on the Government Benches will agree with me encourages me to sit down and allow them so to do.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that this debate ends at 1.15 am and that I am aware of a dozen hon. Members who wish to take part in it. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I shall do my best to obey your recommendation, Mr. Speaker. Like the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) on raising this subject and following an excellent precedent. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Mr. Dean) introduced a similar motion in February 1967. Since he cannot take part in the debate, for reasons of which we are all aware, I should like to say that I do not know a more conscientious or able constituency Member than my hon. Friend.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon West, when I opened the debate in November 1964, 19 years ago —the first time, I think, that the south-west had been raised as a single issue in the House — I made the point that our prosperity must depend upon good communications; without them there could be no prosperity. In those days we published a manifesto for the south-west and substantial progress has been made, about which I believe it is right to boast this evening.
With regard to main routes, we have the M5, the A38 dualled as far as Plymouth, and, as my hon. Friend said, we are going ahead with the north Devon link. Locally we have built bypasses in, I dare say, some hundred places, for example Milverton and Wellington in my constituency. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Truro were right when they said that if we were to make a further dent in the appalling unemployment in Cornwall expenditure on roads must continue. We badly need the A30 route to which my hon. Friend referred, the Okehampton bypass, the Plymouth-Tamar bridge connection, a main route from Weymouth and the other south coast ports into the motorway network going to the north, and many more local bypasses — Hatch Beauchamp, Preston Bowyer, Norton Fitzwarren and so on in my constituency. We must continue the progress and I hope that my right hon. Friend and neighbour, whom we all respect greatly, will take the point on board. We are glad to have the Secretary of State for Employment here to answer the debate.
Let us make no mistake—we have transformed the position. Taunton is now a mere two hours from London

or Birmingham, and Plymouth—thanks to high speed trains—a mere three hours. However, the hon. Member for Truro was correct in saying that British Rail's service is deteriorating sharply in the south-west. The one message which I hope will go home from the debate is that we want to see it improved. It is no good talking about arriving directly; we want to arrive on time and reliably.
We have the roll-on/roll-off ferries out of Plymouth giving easy connections to the continent—Roskoff, St. Malo and Santander—and we have the early morning air shuttle from Plymouth to Heathrow, which now means that business day return travel is easier from Taunton, Tiverton or Honiton to Paris, Frankfurt or Amsterdam than it might be from Ipswich, Northampton or Stafford.
The west country is no longer isolated. We have made a great advance. My right hon. Friends who have been Ministers deserve considerable credit for that. There are some surprising statistics. Between 1971 and 1981, our population rose by 6 per cent. to 4·34 million—the second highest increase of any region. In 1980–81 the south-west had the highest population influx of any region. People vote with their feet. The best evidence of the attractiveness of the area where we live and have the honour to represent is undoubtedly given by those statistics. However, the level of unemployment has remained a steady 2 per cent below the national average. It follows, therefore, that, with the notable exception of Cornwall, the south-west is riding out the recession, which is the worst economic storm since the 1930s, better than most other regions.
There are good reasons for that. We are fortunate, as my hon. Friend said, in our environment, but, more importantly, we have helped ourselves over the years. We have deliberately set out to establish diversity of economic growth as a safety factor. The south-west is an excellent place to establish or run a business because our managers are competent, our managers and work force alike are responsible people and we have good workers, dedicated skilful and loyal. With the single exception of Avon, a county which is profligate and spendthrift—in my view an abomination which should not have been created and which should be abolished — our local authorities are careful managers.
If I may quote Taunton out of many examples that I could give—and the hon. Member for Truro made the same point — when it comes to rate poundages, the increase over the period of this local authority's establishment, 1974–75 to 1983–84, is less by 20 per cent. than the increase for England and Wales as a whole. The average rate payment in Taunton for each domestic household is less by 40 per cent. than for England and Wales as a whole.
A point follows from that which I should like to make clearly in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and it has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West. It is unfair that the proposed rate capping system should penalise those who have been careful and competent.
Somerset, my county, will be affected very badly by the rate capping proposal. It is generally thought of as a sleepy, rural county, but it has also been sharing to a great extent in the growth to which I have referred. The population has increased by a remarkable 11 per cent. over the past decade. A further 11 per cent. increase in our work force is expected over the next 10 years. There is a surprisingly wide mix of manufacturing industry which


accounts for 35 per cent. of our employment, above the national average, and yet our jobless rate has stayed well below current norms.
Here, then, in general is a success story, but, as the hon. Member for Truro said, it is right none the less that we should expect some encouragement and reinforcement from the Government after what we have been able to achieve. I put this point first, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West did. We want a proper share of our own market to be for our local production. That applies especially to agriculture, and the sooner we remove some of the uncertainties currently affecting agriculture, the better.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend. Before he leaves the subject of rates, I should say that until the last election I had the honour of representing a constituency covering the county of Somerset and the new county of Avon. I am sure my right hon. Friend will recall the constant communications which we as Members had with the leaders of the Avon county council.
I question whether the intentions of the Government are quite as my right hon. Friend has put it, because Somerset has been fairly good at housekeping. It riles my constituents to read of the Labour leaders of Avon county council blaming the Government for cutting the rate support grant when it has known week after week since it has been in office that its profligate expenditure, to use my right hon. Friend's words, is the direct cause of this penalty.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for taking this opportunity to make it clear that Avon county council has had it coming; indeed, has known why it has had it coming, and I believe the Government are right to do what they are doing.

Mr. du Cann: I have no objection in the least to my hon. Friend's interruption provided, Mr. Speaker, that you will be good enough not to hold the time factor against me. I have every sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend makes. I have no objection to the profligate and careless councils being clobbered. Indeed, I believe that Government have a duty to that end in the general interest. My complaint arises when the low spenders, the careful spenders such as Cornwall, Somerset and Devon, are affected in the way that it is proposed they may be affected. I hope that it is not too late to find some way of making exceptions for such councils.
I was arguing the point that it is important for our local industries to get a proper share of our local market. Fishing is a second example which I could quote. There are other areas where minor alterations of Government policy would, I believe, have a disproportionately beneficial effect. Let me give one or two instances.
Tourism is a big industry, which employs almost 200,000 people. We have 15 million visitors a year, whereas Wales has 11 million, and Scotland 13 million. It raises about £1 billion a year in turnover. It must be right to encourage that development and to introduce tax allowances for tourist-related buildings on a par with manufacturing industry. The cost per annum would be a mere £10 million. It would only be fair to do that and to give some help with the infrastructure, where major investment is needed.
The Government give huge grants to Liverpool, the north-west, the north and other areas where there have been substantial structural problems, but smaller places also have structural problems. One example is Wellington, near where I live, whose textile industry — once the major employer in the town—has almost disappeared. Wellington has just as much of a structural problem as Durham, Tyneside or Liverpool, and derelict site clearance grants would be a great help in our area.
Furthermore, the Government should have the common sense to develop the natural resources of the south-west. For instance, it makes more sense to use a port such as Falmouth than it does to bring more heavy shipping through the Channel. They could also develop offshore oil and mining, as the hon. Member for Truro suggested. It also makes sense to spend money maintaining those defence industries where the entire economy would benefit. I have mentioned many times in the House the art and science of hydrography, which is a great earner for the United Kingdom. We need new ships, and an expansion of the service, so that our coasts are properly mapped.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: To do that we must carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to chart the waters round our coast so that we can prevent fearsome pollution from collisions and strandings.

Mr. du Cann: I entirely agree and sympathise with my hon. Friend's point, which I have made in the House more than once. Government expenditure need not be wasteful expenditure. When it goes into capital projects it can bring returns of many times the original value.
I hope that, above all else, the Government will help us in the west country to retain our character. The Government are not always tactful in the way that they refer to the west country. One sometimes hears senior civil servants — who should know better — talking about Bristol as the capital of the west country, but Bristol is further from Falmouth than is London.
We have a unique character in the south-west. We are a self-reliant, independent and indomitable people, but we have had little direct help from the Government. The Library has a table showing regional assistance per head of the population. From 1976–77 to 1982–83 the total amount of regional assistance was £911 million. Of that, the south-west received a mere £16·2 million. This compares with Scotland, which received £366 million, Wales which received £181 million, the north, which received £109 million, and the north-west, which received £172 million. The south-west received 2 per cent. of the total. As to expenditure per head, the south-west received a mere £3·80, Scotland received £72, Wales received £66, and the north received £42. We do not ask for or want much, but we need that little extra help which will encourage us to continue to stand on our own feet and to be as successful as we have been in the past.

Dr. David Owen: These debates are an unrivalled opportunity to make constituency points and to argue the problems of our regions. We welcome the Secretary of State for Employment. He has done a great courtesy to all of us in coming to answer the debate on behalf of the Government.
The problem about the south-west is that we have two regions. The far south-west—Devon and Cornwall—is


in many ways different from the rest of the south-west. By discussing the south-west across that wide region, there is a great danger of our losing sight of some of the unique problems that face Devon and Cornwall. The first thing to remember is that although the country sees Devon and Cornwall as a tourist resort and as beautiful counties, where people often spend their holidays, this is a region of considerable deprivation.
The most stark statistic reflects the average weekly earnings for males. In Devon and Cornwall the figure is £133·30 per week compared with England's average of £154·80. Of the 50 shire and metropolitan counties, Cornwall is 50th — bottom — in the league table of weekly earnings. Devon is forty-sixth. Further up the table, Somerset is forty-third. Those three counties are a concentration of low income, in regional terms. With that goes a low taxable base, presenting considerable problems for the local authorities.
It is extremely interesting that the Department of Education and Science recently did a survey of deprivation in terms of education. Devon came close in the analysis to the scores of major urban centres traditionally associated with decline and social problems. Rural decline and deprivation is an issue that is all too frequently forgotten.
Unemployment levels are high. They would be a great deal higher had we not had considerable investment from the Ministry of Defence over the years, which has insulated us a great deal from economic downturns. It has been a problem for us in other areas in terms of contributing to low wages, but in Plymouth it has been an important shield against the economic decline. We are extremely fortunate that Devonport dockyard did not suffer.

Mr. Wiggin: Its work load has increased enormously.

Dr. Owen: Its work load has increased as a consequence of the closure of Chatham, which was a necessary but important regional decision, as it had regional implications.
The other most worrying thing that has been happening in Devon is the fast increase in the number of elderly people. A 16 per cent. increase in those aged 75 and above can be expected over the next 10 years. As we all know, that carries with it heavy costs, particularly on the Health Service and local authority personal and social services.
It is against the background of low wages, deprivation in education and severe demographic pressure from the elderly population that one has to look at what is being done to the local authorities by the Government's rate capping proposals. The history is tangled and most unfortunate. Despite frequent attempts to intervene from the centre, no Government have yet been able to come up with a formula that is fair and does not greatly undermine local democracy and local judgment. We are now seeing a serious consequence, that fewer able people are prepared to go into local government when more of the decisions are being taken in the Department of the Environment and here in Westminster. If that continues, we will find that we shall get the standard of service from our local councillors that we deserve. Fewer able people will be prepared to go into local government. What is the reason? After all, both Devon and Cornwall are way below, in spending, that which the Government think is necessary to match the needs of the two counties. Devon and

Cornwall will be specifically penalised, as the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said. Devon will have to reduce its 1984–85 budget by £4 million to remain even the 1 per cent. above target. I urge Conservative Members, who can now control this issue, to throw out the rate capping procedures introduced by the Government. They are loathed by Conservative councillors throughout the south-west, and are thought to be unfair and unjust—something must be done.
I draw attention to the fact that 53·6 per cent. of roads in the county of Devon are unclassified — an extraordinary problem. They add tremendously to the beauty and versatility of the county, but it is being forced not to spend money on them. If this position continues for another two to three years, many of the roads will be impossible to repair. In my judgment, major closures will take place of country lanes which have added immensely to Devon's charm.
I will now concentrate, in the short time available to me, on my constituency. The far south-west desperately needs a better industrial base. I accept that we cannot have industry throughout Devon and Cornwall. However, I have always believed in the concept of growth areas as part of regional policy. One may say that that is because Plymouth is the obvious and natural growth centre and that I am arguing a purely constituency case. That is not the position. Plymouth should accept, in any sensible growth centre regional policy, a limitation on the size of factories which it might attract. I have never understood why Governments have not acted in such a way. A case exists for ensuring that the smaller towns in Devon and Cornwall can attract small factories, and any added incentive given by building up the industrial strength of Plymouth should not act as the magnet that takes away the small factories to which these towns are especially suited. We need a capacity to attract the larger factories to the biggest urban centre of population—in Plymouth— in the hope that they will spark off satellite development in other towns. Plymouth factories can be limited to the larger size, especially if the city is to become an enterprise zone. Plymouth is unique and would benefit from enterprise zone status. The rundown area of Cattdown is especially attractive.
I believe that three sites should be brought together in a Plymouth growth centre enterprise zone. One would probably be just in Cornwall, another in Plymouth and the third in Devon on the boundary of the City of Plymouth. It is ridiculous that we should examine an enterprise zone only in terms of Plymouth city council. We should look at the position encompassing Devon and Cornwall and try to link the three developments into our urban centre.
If enterprise zone status was granted to Plymouth, I would be perfectly prepared to accept a minimum size limitation on factories and that it could not act as a magnet for small factories which might be located elsewhere.
Plymouth must concentrate on its four remarkable institutions. The marine biological laboratory is world famous. It has made an unparalleled contribution to pure science. The only other laboratory in the world which draws a comparison with it is in the United States. Plymouth has the Natural Environment Research Council establishment. The city also has the Plymouth polytechnic, which has built itself up and specialises to a great extent in marine studies and sciences. We also have the Royal Naval Engineering college at Manadon which is soon to have the nuclear physics engineering department


from Greenwich. The college has a remarkable capacity for marine engineering and it is beginning to admit civilian students.
The area lacks a person or body who will bring the four institutions together and build a marine sciences and technology specialisation for Plymouth industries. It is a natural growth technology. In California, marine sciences and technologies are becoming the high-tech spheres of the future. We must realise that Plymouth should and could specialise in this area.
It is no use expecting to attract industries right across the board. Scotland, Wales and other parts of Britain have problems and are trying to attract industries. We must develop a degree of specialisation, the high technology industries will be attracted to an environment containing a high level of pure science and research. Such an environment can make it easier for firms to attract scientists and managers in the rapidly moving sphere of science and technology.
We need a lead from the Government. I urge the Department of Trade and Industry to consider the possibility of building up Plymouth as a specialised centre of marine science and technology. That means bringing together the Departments of the Environment, Trade and Industry, Defence, and Education and Science and the marine and science institutions. That prospect offers hope for the future, and would benefit both Devon and Cornwall. We cannot expect to develop in isolation. I long to see a region for the far south-west, which would naturally be Devon and Cornwall. If it had to include Somerset, I could not deny that, although I think that Somerset more naturally fits in with Avon and other parts — [Interruption.] I realise the hostility to that suggestion. We are all sad that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) cannot speak in this debate as the lone voice of the Labour party. We would like to hear his contribution, but understand why he cannot speak.
Devon and Cornwall are a region and need to be recognised as such. Plymouth can make a contribution within that region. There are areas of deprivation and unemployment that face serious problems that we must tackle. I hope that the debate will bring some benefit to the region and concentrate the Government's attention on the problems.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) on introducing the debate. I shall pick out one or two of his points, which were also raised by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon).
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, (Dr. Owen) and the hon. Member for Truro both said that Cornwall is much further away from London and the developed south-east than many people imagine. If one is in Bristol, one is still closer to London than to the Cornish border if travelling by road.
I wish to impress upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the problems faced by the area. My right hon. Friend comes to the debate with the remarkable experience of ministerial responsibility for the Departments of the Environment, Transport and

Employment—the three major Departments that cover the principal problems in the south-west, and especially Cornwall.
I was pleased by the recent announcement that regional aid would be reviewed. I share the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West towards the review—even though the criteria are being altered, I support any money for the west country being given to improved communications and especially road communications in Cornwall.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider most carefully the impact of that suggestion on employment potential in Cornwall. While the area has a number of major employers, it is occupied predominantly by small businesses. My constituency is the third in the country most heavily populated by small businesses. The dual carriageway between Whiddon Down and Okehampton, which my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West mentioned tonight, is a welcome move. I urge the Minister to explain to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport how important it is that that road is "dualled" into Cornwall. I am certain that the hon. Member for Truro will confirm that it is nonsense to have transport coming from Whiddon Down via an alternating single track and double track all the way down the spine of Cornwall. That has an inhibiting effect upon industry in the county of Cornwall. I ask the Minister to consider also the beneficial effect on tourism in the constituency and the whole of Cornwall if that road were made into a constant dual track. It would extend the tourist season. The county and Cornwall as a whole would become more accessible for people coming to hotels, guest houses and camping sites.
People considering opening up small businesses, or perhaps even large businesses, in the west country do not look so much at the grants but, as a matter of commercial criteria, whether the area is best for them. In Cornwall, they find that the environment and wage rates are pleasing, labour relations are good and there is a willingness among local authorities to accommodate them, but, in addition to their communications problems, they all too often find that there is a lack of necessary infrastructure in terms of water resources and sewerage facilities to enable them to build the premises that they require and to set up their principal employees in the homes that they would want if they are moving to Cornwall.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider that aspect in terms of the capital that he can obtain for the county as a whole by using his influence. I share the view of the right hon. Member for Devonport that there are problems that are peculiar to Cornwall and Devon which are not the same as the problems higher up in the southwest region. If the Minister could prevail upon his colleagues in the Cabinet to ensure that capital expenditure is aimed at the infrastructure of the road and the other matters to which I referred, I am certain that throughout the country he would obtain a tremendous economic response that would lower the level of unemployment in the county.

Mr. Anthony Steen: It gives me great pleasure to participate in a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tot-ridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), especially as this debate is the third on the Consolidated Fund list and has been introduced at such a


socially acceptable hour by Commons standards. The last time that I enjoyed a similiar pleasure was when I spoke on the Second Reading of a Bill on Dartmoor which was introduced by the then Member for Totnes, Ray Mawby.
Mention must be made of the achievements of my predecessor, Ray Mawby. He gave a life-time — 28 years—of service to the House. He was an assiduous, concerned and dedicated constituency Member. He was a considerable orator when roused, but, like many political careers, his ended in tears with boundary changes and no seat. I believe that Parliament must have a special responsibility for and give consideration to its servants when their careers end prematurely. That is not just financially important. There must also be social contacts.
Ray Mawby was not my only predecessor, as Totnes makes up slightly less than half of my constituency of South Hams. About a third of my constituency was taken from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) and the balance was poached from my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West.
The area of South Hams is one of the most beautiful, unspoilt and scenically unsurpassed areas in Britain. It is a veritable paradise compared with the inner city constituency in Liverpool which I had the privilege to represent for nine years.
There are three bands in the South Hams constituency. In the north, there is what I call the "wildscape"—the Dartmoor national park. Even that area, however, is not safe. As we have heard today, the A30 bypass will cut through some of the most beautiful country in Britain, that of the Dartmoor national park. The military are also active on the north of Dartmoor. while in the south-west there is extensive mining of china clay. Moreover, an appeal is currently before the Minister on an application to mine tungsten. If the appeal succeeds, the tungsten mine in the Shaugh Prior — Sparkwell area will be amongst the largest in the world and probably the largest in Europe. The wildscape band runs from Cadover Bridge and Shaugh Prior in the west right over to the other side of Dartmoor, to the Avon dam, Shipley Bridge and South Brent, touching the outskirts of Buckfastleigh.
The second band is the agricultural belt of lush, fertile farmland which produces some of the finest milk and Devon cream. Within that belt are the medieval towns of Modbury and Totnes and small hamlets and villages such as Barberton, Holbeton Marldon and Berry Pomeroy, which would no doubt produce very fine wine if it were French. There are fruit farms and vineyards and the land flows with milk and honey.
The third band is the heritage coastline, running from near the fishing port of Brixham through Churston, Kingswear, Dartmouth, Slapton Sands, Torcross, East Prawle, Salcombe and Bigbury bay almost to the boundaries of Plymouth in Heybrook bay. That area is filled with rivers such as the Erm, the Plym, the Avon and the Dart. We even have an island in the shape of Burgh island. There are rolling hills, deep wooded valleys, estuaries full of fish and a coastline full of crab, lobsters and oysters. The climate is warm and mellow. Some regard it as a garden of Eden. We even have a naturist beach and hotel.
The House will forgive me if I wax lyrical about this beautiful, delightful area. It is totally unspoilt, but its location, climate and range of natural facilities are the very ingredients that spell danger for it. Tourism is an important livelihood — the other is farming — for many of my

77,000 constituents, but the potential exploitation of the area must concern both national and local politicians, who must be forever vigilant.
With the A30 and improved transport facilities, except when British Rail trains run their customary half an hour late, the area enjoys one of the best communications corridors in the south-west. Ministers and politicians must therefore consider the extent to which we should allow market forces to determine what happens in the area.. For example, do we continue building homes simply because there is a constant stream of people wishing to live in this most attractive area? My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) gave figures for the flow from other areas into the south-west.
Examination of the demographic map and of the census figures shows that the population which flows from large industrial conurbations such as Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow, lends to move south to new towns and to the south-west in search of a change of climate and environment and job opportunities. There is a real problem that the population of Devon will expand as the older industrial cities will empty. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment must consider that extremely carefully.
The North American experience is that large industrial cities such as Cleveland and Chicago have emptied in the past 30 years as people have moved to the sun belt in the south. That is exactly what is happening in Britain from the north to the south. Unless the Government want to distort those market forces, that is what will continue to happen. If that happens, the Government must consider what they will do about it. There is a dilemma for the planners as well as for the Government.

Mr. Michael Cocks: The hon. Gentleman is reading.

Mr. Steen: I am refreshing my memory.

Mr. Cocks: Memories of Liverpool.

Mr. Steen: Planners fa.ce the problem of deciding whether to concentrate on small growth areas and expand villages and hamlets. Ivybridge, which is on the A38, has a population of about 5,000 to 6,000. The planners intend that it shall increase to about 14,000 in the next eight years. Is that where we want growth to take place? Is that where there should be an enterprise zone, or are we to allow small towns to grow as well as the hamlets? At the moment the planners are allowing another 200 or 300 houses in Totnes and another 200 or 300 on the green field sites near the sea at Thurlestone and slowly but surely the market forces are destroying the area which I described earlier as one of the few that flows with milk and honey.
If the Government wish to delay the destruction of the area they must move in with regional aid and divert elsewhere the people who want to go to the south. That is why we must examine regional aid and decide whether we intend to alter the aid programme so that people do not move south but go to other areas. I suggest that it is not possible to distort market forces in this way or to move people to areas in which they do not want to live. We must therefore consider how we can tastefully and sensibly balance a new economy in the south-west so that, with the rapid expansion of the area's population, we develop a new harmony between developers and those who want to live in the area.
The problem of South Hams and of the south-west in general is how to conserve what is best, how to strike a balance in the development, and how to discriminate in favour of tasteful expansion against exploitation by market forces.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on, as it were, his second maiden speech on his present constituency. I am sure that he found it easier to be enthusiastic and poetic, as he was in the first part of his speech, about South Hams than he would have been about Liverpool, Wavertree. We welcome him to the south-west. The House has heard him often before and I am sure that it will listen to him with the same attention in the future.
I, also thank the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) who, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and other right hon. and hon. Members, initiated the debate. I had some difficulty with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro, whose definition of where the south-west begins and ends is confined to an area that stops 100 yards this side of the Tamar. I have to keep reminding him, when he tells me that I should not intervene in this debate because Somerset is really part of the west midlands, of what Dr. Johnson said when travelling in the south-west, that, "The further I travel west the more I realise why it was that the wise men came from the east." In the south-west, that is definitely true.
We hear much in the House about inner city deprivation. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said that we may legitimately raise in this debate important queries about rural deprivation, which is as strong and indentifiable in the south-west as it is anywhere else. Inevitably, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro said, such debates as this tend to become a list of points, and I am afraid that my speech shall as well. I shall not be able to paint such a rosy picture of conditions in my area of south-west as did the right hon. Member for Taunton, but that is as it should be as he sits on the Government Benches, and I sit on the Opposition Benches.
However, I start with the same point as the right hon. Gentleman—the importance of local government and the way in which its power and capacity to do something about the problems of the area have been diminished, particularly by rate capping. It is not necessary to spend time describing how this has affected Somerset, Cornwall and Devon, and our district councils. Yeovil district council, which is the lowest-spending district council anywhere, is still in danger of being penalised for over spending. We share the anger that the right hon. Member for Taunton expressed much more elequently than I.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will be as aware as I am of some of the effects of some of the Government's policies, which are deeply disturbing. My post bag is full of letters about the effects that will be felt in Somerset to take but one case, and I am sure that there will be others as well—in education. Somerset does not have a good record on education. We have been identified as one of the lowest-spending shire counties in England, and having one of the lowest pupil-teacher ratios. Many of our schools are

small village schools with relatively high pupil-teacher ratios, so the low overall ratio disguises the fact that in some places the ratio is very bad.
Somerset is just beginning to be able to put more into the education system, but there will now be a further swingeing series of cuts. I was speaking three or four weeks ago to the chief executive of Somerset county council, who made it clear to me that, although there would be fairly major reductions in education this coming year, that would be as nothing to what we shall experience in the years following, when not only will there be a further reduction of the vital resources that go into education, and a further decrease of the pupil-teacher ratio, but the closing of more schools.
The shame of this is that the people of Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, if given the choice, rate their education system highly enough to wish to pay more. They recognise that the Government are not going to hand out vast sums of money for the education system that they want. They recognise that the money will have to come out of their pockets, and do not mind. I was recently at a public meeting in which this question was put and both those with children in the education system and those with none agreed that they would be prepared to pay more to make this investment for our future. But we now know that they cannot do that. That is a shame for the future of our country and our area. As the right hon. Member for Taunton said, by our own skills and drive, we have managed to keep ourselves out of the recession — certainly, in our part of the south-west. Institutions such as Yeovil technical college, by keeping up an extraordinarily high level of technical and entrepreneurial expertise, have contributed to that. However, they, too, are now to be cut back. So it is a matter of future investment and future deep concern.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) also mentioned roads. Here, again, I part company somewhat from the right hon. Member for Taunton, who equated with a little too much facility good communications with the creation of jobs. Certainly, we need better communications in the south-west, but it is not only the large roads that matter. The Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), will know only too well that, although Bridgwater has a major motorway within 500 yards of its boundary, it remains one of the major centres of unemployment in Somerset. So good communications do not necessarily exactly equate with jobs.
I am more concerned about the state of our road infrastructure, our smaller roads. The county surveyor for Somerset has been telling me for many years that the infrastructure is in danger. One would expect a county surveyor to say that—after all, that is his job—but when farmers begin to complain about the breakdown of the road structure, we are in considerable trouble. The maintenance of small roads is now a matter of some concern. Many people see it as a threat to the whole infrastructure and to all our livelihoods, not just in farming but in industry.
Another subject that has been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members tonight is the local transport system. I do not want to talk about railways, although it is possible to perceive extra investment in some of our lines—certainly, the one that is vital to my constituency, running from Exeter to Salisbury. There is now a possibility of extra money being put into that and into providing a more efficient service.
Rather, I want to talk about buses. The withdrawal of local bus services has isolated our villages and made them into areas where, in large measure, retired people now live. One cannot get from some of our smaller villages to the larger towns where the employment is based. In my maiden speech I mentioned the case—I mention it again today. with no apology—of the 16-year-old boy who left school last year and went, first, to his jobcentre to sign on and then to the careers office—in Crewkerne and Yeovil respectively — and he was then told to go to Taunton for his interview with the Department of Health and Social Security. From the small village of Cudworth where he lives it is impossible to get to Taunton and back by public transport in the same week. That was his problem, and it is shared by others.
Similarly, we are now beginning to see the necessity of capitalising on some of our vital investment resources in Somerset. Somerset county council is now considering selling the county council's smallholdings. In the past, those small farms have acted as a ladder for young people to move into agriculture. That is selling the seedcorn. I very much hope that Somerset county council will stand back from that decision and hang on to the few smallholdings that are left, so as to allow young people to come into agriculture.

Sir Peter Mills: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many people have actually moved out of the council's smallholdings? What is the percentage? It is not a stepping stone, or a ladder. They stay there and do not move on to other farms. What the hon. Gentleman says is not correct.

Mr. Ashdown: What the hon. Gentleman says may be true in Devon, but I can assure him that it is a stepping stone and a ladder in Somerset. I cannot give the figures off the top of my head, but the National Farmers union is deeply opposed to what is happening, although most of its members share the politics of Conservative Members. The NFU thinks that it is vital to preserve a career structure.

Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. gentleman remember the value of holdings and bear in mind that they represent a substantial part of the county's lending? If the holdings were sold, the rates would be reduced by a substantial number of pence. The hon. Gentleman should inform himself about the figures before he makes broad statements based on the advice of the local NFU branch.

Mr. Ashdown: I have examined the figures and I should be happy to pass on the details. Even on the basis of return for the county coffers and the rent raised, we are talking about a significant source of income. Selling the seed corn in that fashion for a short-term return is a bad move which should be resisted. I warn Ministers that such a move will invite opposition from all sides, on the ground of economy and a reasonable career structure in farming.
I recognise that we have remained largely unaffected by the worst of the recession. Yeovil has done extremely well in comparison with others. My point is complicated but important. The whole of the county structure plan for Somerset and the policies within it are based on the premise that Somerset will have increased by 18,300 the number of jobs available in the planned period from 1977 to 1991. The structure plan is based upon that. When I gave evidence about that structure plan, I said that the target was pie in the sky.
How far have we progressed? By 1986 we would have to have created an extra 5,900 jobs. I do not know what

the precise figure should be this year, but so far we have not created a single job—we have in fact lost 300. The premise on which the structure plan is based is in doubt.
The Manpower Services Commission, using the youth training scheme and the community programme, has a large part to play in creating and encouraging new jobs. It is with deep concern, not to say anger, that we discovered only weeks ago that the MSC, which has encouraged us to create new jobs, suddenly says, "It's all stopped". That came without warning.
I asked the Minister how the south-west compared with the rest of the country. The south-west has reached only 79 per cent. of its approved schemes target, whereas every area except London has overrun massively. The northwest is running at 120 per cent. of its budget. The figure for the north-east is 113 per cent. Other areas range from 114 per cent. to 120 per cent. of their budgets. The southwest has had to pay because of a lack of budget control by the MSC on the community programme elsewhere.
As I have said before, I have experience of working within and with the MSC. That experience leads me to believe that it is one of the most inefficient and unreasonable organisations which have access to the public purse in Britain. It lacks budgetary control. The fact that the Manpower Services Commission has been allowed to over-run its budget by 120 per cent. in other areas of Britain while the south-west has had to stop at 79 per cent. is an indication of that lack of budgetary control.
It is time that the whole operation of the Manpower Services Commission and its expenditure of public funds was the subject of some parliamentary scrutiny. I should like the Select Committee on Employment to examine the way the Manpower Services Commission spends the money, the way that it frequently mis-spends it, the inefficiencies in the commission, the duplication that is often brought about by the schemes it initiates, and its complete lack of consultation with local government in many areas. I hope that the Minister will answer that point in particular.
I strongly suspect that the sum of human misery created in rural areas such as the south-west by lack of housing is almost as great as that which is created by lack of jobs. I refer in particular to housing for single people, who are especially disadvantaged. There is no housing for single people in our area. The cut-backs have been such that, although Yeovil district council has £2 million in its budget, it is now unable to build an adequate number of houses, especially for single people.
I should like to tell the House of the tragic story of my constituent Melvyn Duck, whose marriage broke up six weeks ago. He was living in a house from which he was removed. He found himself the most disgraceful and disreputable accommodation, but it was accommodation in which he could live, and he had access to his two children. He was then removed from that accommodation. While he was in that accommodation, he was on the housing list with about 20 points and a reasonable prospect of being housed at some time in the future. The moment he became homeless, he was removed from the housing list because, in order to be on a district council housing list, one has to have a house in the first place so that one's housing can be assessed. The fact that he became homeless removed him from the housing list. That may seem like a Catch 22 situation—if he had a house, he would not have needed housing and therefore would have been removed — but the fact that he became homeless


removed him from the housing list as well. The fact that there was no house for him meant that he lost access, because of a judge's decision, to his two children. The fact that he was therefore a vagrant wandering the streets meant that the DHSS treated him under the vagrancy conditions and required him to turn up at the DHSS every day to receive supplementary benefit. Because of the lack of a house, within three weeks, a respected and reasonable member of our community, a fellow citizen of mine, was forced to wander the streets at night, had lost access to his children and was treated by the DHSS as a vagrant. What a tragic story. His world had collapsed around his ears.
I have mentioned the run-down in education, the need to create more jobs in order to ensure that forward planning is effective, the need for housing and the need for better roads. It is incumbent on me, having raised those points, to say what is needed. I hope that the Government will consider, not only for the south-west but for rural areas generally, a programme to begin to regenerate some of the rural areas and the small villages and hamlets. Those are becoming, unhappily, museum pieces in which retired people live, and areas from which the lifeblood of employment, education and schools is being removed. They are becoming mere satellites to the larger towns. We need a study of the rural areas of Britain and a concerted programme in order to be able to cope with some of the problems that they experience and which we see largely in the south-west.

12 midnight

Mr. Michael Stern: The economic prosperity of our region depends on our being able to attract new industries and the jobs that they bring and, at the same time, to provide conditions—such as a skilled work force, ease of communications and supporting financial services — to enable existing industries to expand.
A number of factors enter into that climate. Low taxation, freedom from exchange controls and freedom from excessive bureaucracy all play their part in enabling the region to capitalise on its natural resources. In addition, selective Government help in certain key projects is essential, and in that connection I remind the House that we are awaiting long-delayed decisions on three key projects, all of which are essential, not just to the area, but to the many industries which they affect, namely, the A320 airbus, the V2500 engine and the ship-launched Sea Eagle. But, perhaps most important, we need in this area the ability to compete with neighbouring areas for essential industries and jobs under the rules of fair competition. We therefore need a regional aid policy which leaves undisturbed the natural relationship between closely adjoining but similar regions.
Bristol, part of which I have the honour to represent, is less than 20 miles from the boundary of the south Wales development area. Both areas offer similar rapid communications by road, rail and air; both offer similar histories of welcome to new businesses, large and small; and both offer similar economic hinterlands. In theory they should be competing equally for jobs and industries, yet that competition is rendered pointless by the extensive grants that can be offered as a result of development area status.
I shall give three case histories to illustrate the point. In 1980 a company called Vallison Dean Limited of Brislington, Bristol, which manufactures and assembles new engineering products, was approached either by the south Wales development area or the county of Mid-Glamorgan, and moved to Bridgend. At the time of the move the firm employed 60 people. It was offered a factory of 5,000 sq ft rent free for two years, 20 per cent. grants on plant, a soft loan of £50,000 and labour subsidies for nine months, a total package worth more than £1,000 per man. Was it any wonder that the firm accepted the offer? But was it the original intention of regional policy that the money made available should be used merely to entice industries from adjoining areas?
In 1982, Burke and Jones Limited, manufacturers of reproduction scientific instruments, which developed in Kingswood with some assistance from public funds, was approached by the south Wales development area, and it too went to Mid-Glamorgan. The size of the firm's dowry is not known. It is known, however, that it grew from nothing to employ eight people before leaving the city, but is now believed to employ about 20. What was the cost of that move to the public, and what was the cost to public funds of the resulting unemployment in Bristol?
In recent weeks a company engaged in a service and manufacturing industry in Bristol, which currently employs about 100 people and is shortly to increase that number of employees to 200, has been persuaded to go to Newport, 20 miles away. The company had no particular desire to move, but a package worth more than £750 per employee proved irresistible. Is it any wonder?
I draw these facts to the attention of the Minister in the light of the recently announced intention to review the workings of regional policy. What is not needed is a different way of calculating the handouts. What is needed is both an effective redrawing of the map of the development areas so that the areas assisted accord with modern realities, and a requirement on the development agencies to go out and look for new industries, rather than take the easy option of sucking the blood from adjoining areas.

Mr. Tony Speller: North Devon has always been of a non-conformist bent, so perhaps the House will forgive me if I am slightly more controversial about some of the points that have been made.
Bristol is one of my favourite cities, but it is also one of the most economically favoured cities and it has a little fat to spare. So, if we are to transfer industry into the south-west it may be at the expense of the places with industry already.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who has left the Chamber, wants an enterprise zone for Plymouth. Such an enterprise zone would suck dry Exeter, Torbay and such factories as we have in north Devon. I understand the logic of Bristol or Plymouth Members requiring favours, but they have roads, railways, ports and airports. Many places in the south-west, like north Devon. have none of these things.
I shall stir up controversy on both sides of the House when I say that although I am aware that all the shire councils are complaining bitterly about rate-capping, I have yet to hear a ratepayer complain about it. There is a


slight danger that Members of Parliament may be over-influenced by councillors—just as some Members of Parliament have wrongly, I am sure, thought that Ministers are over-influenced by the Civil Service.
If we are to make a case for lower rates and more careful spending, and if the money comes from the centre, inevitably much of the control must come from the centre. I apologise again for disturbing the quiet tenor of our evening, just after the witching hour.
There is something important which we Members of Parliament in the south-west can do, and that is connected with the new White Paper, "Regional Industrial Development". Paragraph 32 states simply:
The Government welcome views on which service activities should qualify in addition to manufacturing".
If our natural industry, tourism, were treated at last as a genuine industry and not as some sort of by-product of rural England we could achieve natural growth, side by side with our agriculture, as the two logical industries for our part of the world.
People in my constituency are more interested in self-help it seems, than some others. Last Saturday the Lions Club of Ilfracombe gave me £2,000 towards the youth training centre at Ilfracombe. That was very welcome, and only a few months earlier Ilfracombe town council had given £1,000 and the local banks £400. All the youth training schemes are over-provided or, to be more accurate, undersubscribed.
We are not helpless people asking for everything, but we are asking for a little of the help that we deserve, because it seems that everyone else in the country has already got it. Transportation and roads are important, and we need a power supply which does not fluctuate, causing computers to go on the blink once or twice a day. After Yelland closes next year, there will be no generating station in the south-west, and it is the experience of the commercial world and of factory owners that we have a continual problem with fluctuating voltage.
How about some cheaper telephone calls? To call a local head office from Barnstaple to Exeter will be at the maximum rate. The cost of running anything is higher in the west country because of the distances and the complete lack of the infrastructure enjoyed by our good friends and colleagues across the water in south Wales.
Infrastructure is what we need most urgently. Let us accept that grants which merely induce firms to move from place A to place B do not do much for jobs. More important, we need catering and tourism to be treated as genuine industries. That will create jobs. One can automate many things, but not the personal service side of catering. It is the biggest employer and the biggest earner of hard currency in the country. It is nonsense that this has not been treated before as an industry.
The statistics of the south-west include Bristol. Labour and Conservative Members may talk about our unemployment levels being lower than the national average, but if Bristol were not included they would be well above the national average. To include prosperous Bristol in the south-west figures is a total distortion. I am not knocking Bristol, which is a super place, but the figures for Cornwall or Devon or Somerset, which are overshadowed totally in population by Bristol, are always made to look better than they are, even though the Government treatment that we receive is always worse.

Mr. John Hannam: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) on providing us with the opportunity to have this opportune debate. During the summer, Members from the south-west met local government representatives and councillors from the four peninsular counties of Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. It was plain from our discussions that there was a clear identity of purpose relating to that area as distinct from the much larger and richer area which includes Bristol and Sevemside.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) that Bristol and Sevemside completely distorted the circumstances affecting the peninsular counties. It is important to distinguish between them when we debate the problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said that the problems facing Bristol were different from those faced elsewhere.
The representatives of those four counties were unanimous in the view that we not only needed a debate on our rather beautiful area but one which would give us a much-needed opportunity to point out our difficulties.
Devon and Cornwall are remote. It is difficult for us to transport our products and industry's vital raw materials. Britain's main commercial ports and airports are some distance away. It is therefore extremely difficult to attract industry and commerce. High transport costs mean generally that only firms whose products are of low weight and high value are viable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West said, new communications to north Devon and the improved A30 to Cornwall are vital to reduce those disadvantages.
The south-west suffers from structural underdevelopment, a low employment base, higher than average unemployment, low weekly earnings and an over-reliance on seasonal employment. In Devon and Cornwall 68 per cent. of our employment is in the service sector compared with 59 per cent. in the rest of the country. The unemployment rate is 14·2 per cent. compared with a national average of 12·7 per cent. and average weekly earnings are £133 compared with the average for England of £155. We are pretty well at the bottom of the national league table. That puts Devon, and I am sure Cornwall, in a rather unique position for a shire county. It brings us into the classification of a deprived area similar to those of the major urban socially declining areas.
I shall take that analysis a little further before I mention some of the solutions. Devon and Cornwall, being rural counties with a scattered and sparse population, present economic and social problems in providing essential services. I should like to mention education. There are 87 primary schools in Devon with 50 or fewer pupils. That is 19·7 per cent. compared with the national average of 13·1 per cent. The unit costs for these smaller schools are appreciably higher. In 1981–82 they represented £1,373 per pupil for schools with 20 pupils or less compared with only £488 per pupil in the 400 to 500 pupil school. One must add the high cost of school transport which is nearly half as much again per pupil than the national shire county average. Education problems are acute.
The area has a huge social service burden. That was identified clearly by figures given earlier. During the next 10 years the number of over 75s will increase by some 16 per cent. That would be a problem anywhere, but it


presents particular difficulties in a widely dispersed rural area because of the isolation and lack of access to social services and community facilities.
My hon. Friend dealt ably with the transportation problems we face, and I shall not go further into those problems except to underline the necessity for proper rate support to take account of the deterioration of rural roads in our counties.
That leads to the crux of my speech which is finance. The region has obviously historic funding problems. The main industry of tourism is highly seasonal and in need of sustained regional policies. The concept of a Devon and Cornwall joint agency for the promotion of industry and tourism is a good one that I hope will receive favourable consideration in the current review of regional aid. Parliament is about to plunge into highly controversial rates legislation, and I do not intend to anticipate the coming debates on that matter. However, I express my deep concern about the situation facing the local authority in Devon. Historically we have always been under-funded, and yet we have endeavoured to meet the Government's spending targets despite the immense difficulties. A wide gap exists between the target laid down for 1984–85 and the grant-related expenditure for that year to the tune of £15 million, and that ignores the sparsity element I described earlier that adds further to our costs.
As a result of the Government's rates penalties, Devon has had to reduce its 1984–85 budget by £4 million to remain even within the 1 per cent. above target level. That involves the axing of a possible 200 jobs, including many teachers, and a contraction of transportation spending. Those two main areas will be affected, and yet they are the very areas in which the greatest difficulties will be faced.
Looking at Devon's problems, I can only praise the work and effort of the county councillors and officials and their determination over the last few years to uphold the Government's targets as far as possible. However, I feel that the justice being meted out to the large overspending metropolitan and urban counties should not turn into rough justice for the good county councils like ours that, despite historic low funding, have restrained their spending over the last three years in line with the Government's requests and now find themselves being penalised.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made some concessions that have benefited my own district council, the City of Exeter. The district council has moved very suddenly from forecasting a 25 per cent. rate increase to forecasting that it now can hold the rates at the present level. This shows that there has been relief, for which I am grateful. I only hope that some similar method can be found whereby the Secretary of State can be more flexible in his treatment of county councils such as Devon in the review that is to be undertaken before the legislation is proposed.
Finally, I wish to touch on a problem that is affecting all of us in the south-west; that is the operation of the youth training scheme in funding the YTS courses at colleges of education. In Devon and Cornwall three-quarters of the 130 youth training schemes sponsored by private employers make use of the colleges to provide the 13-week element. The Manpower Services Commission has fallen considerably short of meeting the full cost in the past, and the burden has fallen on the local education authorities

who rightly refuse to accept it. Consequently, the individual colleges such as Exeter college have had to absorb substantial deficits on their youth training scheme courses. This matter has already been brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Department. I understand that new negotiations are taking place about next year's arrangements. I hope that my right hon. Friend will press as hard as he can to ensure that this under-funding ceases and that the Manpower Services Commission contribution to the colleges' costs will be to the full amount. If not, we shall go through the same agonies that the colleges faced last year.
Business confidence is growing steadily in our region, but unfair treatment through the rates system will destroy that progress. I want my right hon. Friend to ensure that that does not happen. Being a west countryman himself, my right hon. Friend will know that west countrymen are resolute fighters if the cause is just. I believe that on this occasion our cause is just.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. With a little restraint, all those hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate may be able to do so.

Miss Janet Fookes: I shall bear in mind your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and try to be brief.
I am not one of those who engage in harsh words and shrill criticisms of the Government for seeking to contain public expenditure in local authorities, but I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) concern about the impact on prudent spending authorities, such as Devon, Cornwall and other counties in the south-west, of the Government's spending restraints.
I shall illustrate, for the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, a problem that has arisen in a highly topical area. As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, Plymouth polytechnic is a major institution, and is one of four in the Plymouth area. It has a reputation that goes far beyond the region— indeed, it has a national reputation for some studies, notably maritime studies. The national advisory body, which does not give away its favours lightly, has agreed that next year it will permit an additional 374 students, mainly in engineering, computing and maritime studies, to enter the polytechnic. That is quite a feather in the cap of the college, and the committee will give an extra £700,000 to meet the costs involved.
However, owing to the need for Devon county council to cut its coat according to its cloth, it has proposed to the governors of the polytechnic that there should be a reduction of £700,000 in the amount given by the county, which has cancelled out the benefit of the national advisory body's grant. That is a matter of the utmost seriousness for the polytechnic and for the good studies and the economic benefits which those studies bring to the area.
The cut will probably be a false economy, because the polytechnic calculates that it cannot take the extra students. For each student that it cannot take it will lose £3,000 plus an extra £2,000 per student that would be spent in Plymouth on accommodation and other matters.


I offer this example to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a sign of the difficulties that can occur if authorities are screwed down too tightly financially.
Many hon. Members have mentioned transport this evening. I am coming more and more to the conclusion that artificial incentives, which distort the market, are questionable, to say the least, and that the Government should concentrate on providing truly good transport in its various forms. No one else can do that. I should not wish to be thought churlish about what has already been undertaken. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) mentioned the extent to which the southwest has benefited from major undertakings, but it is not enough to stop there. If we are not careful, there will be a rundown in facilities.
One reason why the trains do not always run on time is that the locomotives are becoming old and increasingly unreliable, and need more and more maintenance. Unless there is investment in new locomotives, the problem of poor timekeeping will not remain as it is now, but will become worse. I hope that such investment will be considered carefully by British Rail and the Departments responsible.
One matter that has not been mentioned in the debate is the Torpoint ferry between Plymouth and Cornwall. The ships are becoming increasingly old, and there will come a time in the not-too-distant future when they must either be replaced or a completely different system, such as a tunnel, must be introduced to take the traffic. I suggest that the latter is by far the most effective in this modern day and age, and that we should not rely on ferries. The Plymouth chamber of trade and industry is keen to see such a development. The point should be made now in advance of the crisis being reached, so that we can get thoroughly good communications.
Finally, I should like to mention the A38 relief road linking the Marsh Mills roundabout outside Plymouth and the Tamar bridge crossing to Cornwall. We are delighted that that is going ahead, but there is a problem in that there will be a bottleneck at each end. We should give attention to what happens on the far side of the Tamar in Saltash and consider a flyover for the Marsh mills roundabout. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that point carefully.
In view of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not make the further point that I had intended to make but will forthwith sit down.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The southwest region, even as presently constituted, has the lowest income per head of any region in Britain, including Scotland and Wales. If one takes out the Bristol area, one starts to get the full and true position. The true south-west is the area that rose in Monmouth's rebellion, plus Cornwall. Bristol did not rise in Monmouth's rebellion. The community of interests of Bristol is with the Midlands, to which it is the entrepOt. But it is included in the south-west, and a Permanent Secretary told me that it is impossible to justify the south-west economic region; it is merely what is left when one draws a reasonable line round everybody else.
The effect of including Bristol in one extreme corner of the region is to distort it administratively. The gas board, the electricity board and the health authority have their headquarters there. When one asks any individual why he is there, he replies, "Because the others are there."

It is not the logical place. The so-called regional offices of Government Departments such as the Department of the Environment and the Department of Employment are tucked away in one extreme corner at Bristol. Remove Bristol from the south-west, and one can then relocate the focal points of Government services and regional services in the centre of the region, where they are accessible to it.
I mentioned incomes first because it is a fact that, as the population retires from other parts of England into the south-west, that grossly forces up the market price of houses. That is because one pays no capital gains tax when one sells a house in the Midlands and buys another in the south-west. However, that has a disastrous effect on the sons and daughters of people whose roots are in the southwest, and who cannot afford to buy the artificially priced houses, as they have nothing to roll over. They live in an area of low incomes. They have to compete with people who reach their plateau of income during their working life in the Midlands and have rolled that price of housing into the market, primarily in Devon and Cornwall, and riot so much in Somerset. That is producing an aggravation of the Costa Geriatrica syndrome—an ever-ageing population. It will go on ageing if the young people have to move out because they cannot find anywhere to live, as prices are outside their reach. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will realise that the only ready solution is that there should be an adequate supply of council house building. That is the only form of housing within reach of people on modest incomes, who are unable to compete with those who retire.
I wish to re-emphasise what has been said about the electricity supply. Industry cannot be attracted and retained if it cannot rely upon its power supply. Two winters ago the two main systems failed. Fortunately, power was fed from the aged and limited-capacity station at Yelland; but a great need exists for a new prime CEGI3 generating station to serve Devon and Cornwall, so that the area is no longer wholly dependent on two crucial power supply lines. Talk of a new power station at Plymouth has continued for years, but nothing further has happened. It would be good news if the Minister confirmed that the CEGB will go ahead with a new power station.
I plead for the south-west, as I have defined it, to receive equal treatment to that of Wales. For some reason, the Principality of Wales seems to have different traffic criteria, which enable the road to Fishguard to he dual carriageway. Such criteria applied to north Devon would make the Link Road dual carriageway, as it would that to Penzance. As the same Secretary of State is not answerable for Wales and England, cohesion of criteria does not exist. The result is a grossly disproportionate funding from central Government for tourism and road construction for Wales as opposed to the south-west, although the problems of the two areas are similar.
The south-west must also listen on the so-called BBC — I say "so-called" because it is supposed to be a national service—but throughout my area we must listen on Radio 4 to news about Wales. BBC Radio 4 serves a far smaller population in Wales than in the south-west.
Those are some of the problems facing my area, in addition to those raised by hon. Members on both sides, which cry out for redress from central Government.

Mr. David Harris: Perhaps it is appropriate that I should be called last from the Back Benches because


I represent, literally, the end of the line—Penzance, the beginning or the end. Perhaps we should spare a thought for part of my constituency beyond Land's End. If we are thinking of the difficulties in travelling to Taunton—when I reach Taunton, I consider myself to be near London — Exeter, Plymouth or even Penzance we must think about the 2,000 or so persons who live on the scattering of islands off Land's End. I could not help thinking of them when my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) was speaking, quite rightly, about the need to secure electricity supplies. The inhabitants of the off islands are presently campaigning for electricity to be provided to them. I received a letter from them today which said that their dearest wish would be to have electricity by this time next year. I hope that that dearest wish will be fulfilled.
The debate has revolved around the problems posed by distance—peripherality—which sums up the problems of the two counties of the far south-west — Devon and Cornwall.
I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has returned to the Chamber, as at one stage he was coming perilously close to suggesting that there should be an elected regional assembly for Devon and Cornwall. If he was, I hope that he will look behind him to his quasi-hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), who will put him in the picture about Cornwall.
We must have equal joint action by the two county councils where there is an affinity of interests or of problems. A mechanism, without bureaucracy, already exists for that through a joint committee, which works well. It would be unacceptable to have an elected regional government for Devon and Cornwall. I can tell the House something for nothing—that would cost a great deal more than we now spend on local government services in the two counties.
Many hon. Members have rightly drawn attention to that diabolical stretch of road the A30. I would rather have delays in building certain sections of the road in Cornwall, provided they were built to a proper standard. It will be a waste of money to build the road to single-carriage standard. Although the area may not have the amount of traffic to warrant the attention and calculations of the Department of Transport, there is still the problem of peripherality and distance. The further an area is from the centre, the easier should be the communications to it—be they by road or rail.
Another means of communication which will become important to the area has not been mentioned in the debate, and that is the whole new era of telecommunications, advanced information technology and so on. The two county councils, working in equal partnership, have put forward a proposal known as SWANS. I do not know what those initials stand for, but it is a system under which certain subscribers could plug into the London telephone exchange. That requires investment, but it should be considered at both national and European level. I shall be pressing that scheme in my role as a European Member of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) and other hon. Members were right to emphasise the need to improve infrastructure—be it roads or—something else that has not featured in the debate—

drains. I know that the subject is unromantic and unexciting, but the absence of a decent drainage and sewerage system is holding back the sensible development of many places in Devon and Cornwall—and not least St. Ives, as became clear during the summer. I hope that more emphasis will be placed on the need to update the sewerage system of towns such as St. Ives that are dependent on tourism.
That brings me to the White Paper "Regional Industrial Development". I underline the plea by several hon. Members that tourism should be designated as a service industry that comes within the ambit of regional grants. I heartily endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Truro about bringing mining into the grant system. Geevor tin mine in my constituency is extending its life by digging deeper. Every mine must do that if it is to survive. I am glad to hear that it is to receive Department of Trade and Industry grant aid to the tune of £350,000. The hon. Member is right that there is no logic in the past practice of mines being deprived of the usual range of regional assistance.
In line with your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall conclude my remarks with a final few words about rates. This matter has featured throughout the debate. My disappointment about rate capping is not based on a theoretical or geographical argument about the constitutional priority of that practice, but stems from the fact that I am afraid that in counties like Cornwall and Devon, where there are prudent local authorities, the Government's proposal as it stands will do nothing to hold out hope of a rate reduction to the many elderly people and shopkeepers who have been looking to the Government for reform of the rates system. We have not seen a real reform of the rate system. Even at this late hour, I beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Cabinet to think about grasping the nettle of rate reform.

Mr. Alan Williams: I apologise if what I say is somewhat disjointed. I want to give the Secretary of State ample time to reply.
I was impressed by the good Socialist speech made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). He outlined graphically the dependence on public expenditure to provide employment in his constituency. I shall recommend his Labour opponent at the next general election to include a full verbatim report of that speech in his election address.
I speak with some diffidence in this debate for reasons that will be understood by Conservative Members. I feel that I am making a vicarious contribution on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), although I believe that my credentials were at least partly established by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) as I helped to put in train the events that led to the saving of Wheal Jane in his constituency with an infusion of Government finance, which he suggested was not available in such circumstances.
One point which has clearly emerged — I speak as someone representing an area outside the region under discussion—is the sense of two regions within a region. That occurs in other parts of the country. For example, there are different problems in north Wales from those affecting south Wales. Not having dealt with regional policy for some years, and having listened to the comments from both sides of the House, it is clear that


there is a potentially prosperous region in the northern part of the area, with access to the M4, M5, the markets of the midlands and London and Heathrow. With some economic growth, which seems to be beyond this Administration's economic capability, this would be an area of substantial prosperity.
In the context of a review of regional policy we should examine, regardless of assisted area status, whether administratively it would make sense to subdivide the region. It is clear that the problems of isolation and communication and the difference between the job and industrial structures in Devon and Cornwall are markedly different from the problems of the northern part of the region.
Devon and Cornwall and the northern part of the region have the common experience of a growth in unemployment. An interesting commentary on the achievements of this Administration is that Conservative Members have been congratulating themselves on the fact that unemployment in this region is not as bad as in some other regions. The fact is that unemployment in the region is still more than 10 per cent. and is nearly 11 per cent., and that one man in eight is without a job. If that is something of which Conservative Members are proud, they ought to step back for a while and ask what they have done to the region which they overwhelmingly represent.
Since this Government came to office, even what has been referred to as prosperous Bristol has seen more than a doubling of unemployment, and Exeter and Plymouth, too, have seen almost a doubling of unemployment. In other words, the south-west has been so successful in avoiding recession that unemployment has more than doubled and there are 100,000 more people out of work than there were when the Conservatives came to office.
In human terms, that means that many people over 45 have no hope of returning to work even in the event of economic recovery. One appreciates that their roots are in the area and they wish to stay there, but they could not move even if they wished to because property values where they are do not compare with property values where the jobs are. They thus cannot afford to move to the still relatively affluent south-east. The young are similarly trapped. Jobs are not available and nor is the necessary training to obtain jobs in the event of an upturn in the economy.
There is thus an evolution of social malaise, imbalance and destruction of communities due to selective migration. There is selective emigration of the young and the skilled who are more mobile and can move away from their homes to seek work, although they should not have to do so. Conversely, as so many hon. Members have emphasised, there is selective immigration of those at the other end of the age spectrum, those reaching retirement age who move into the south-west from areas where property values are high because, relatively speaking, they can get a good buy in Devon or Cornwall although in so doing they push property values out of reach of local youngsters.
Superimposed on the increase in unemployment and the deterioration in the age pattern of the community is the fact, to which the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) referred, that the south-west has the lowest pay in the whole of Britain. Local authorities face what for them is unprecedented unemployment as well as unprecedented demands due to the influx of older residents, which they know will increase by 16 per cent. in the coming decade. Those are social and economic

problems enough, but the Government now propose to ensure that the authorities can do nothing about them, by imposing arbitrary, irrelevant and stupid constraints on necessary expenditure.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), who initiated the debate, entered the House at the same time as I did and we have been friends ever since. I hope that it will not affect his position in his party when I say that I regard him as one of the most loyal people in the House. I was therefore surprised to hear him say today that he could not guarantee support for the Government in the future if they went ahead with their rate-capping proposals. As I listened to other Conservative Members, I understood the reasons for that view. Local authorities in the south-west are paying the price for having failed to make provision for the needs of their areas in the past—a fact of which they should be ashamed rather than proud. Now that the needs are becoming even greater because of the social changes that I have outlined, they are being tied to a rate and expenditure formula which was inadequate when they did not have such problems and which is grossly inadequate and irrelevant now.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West is not alone when he says that he does not want his, local authorities to be penalised because they underspent in the past. His was not an isolated call. I hope that the Secretary of State will report that fact to his colleagues. Vv e heard the same view expressed by hon. Members who represent Cornwall, Devon and Somerset. There is unity on the Conservative Benches in opposition to what the Government propose. That should be a cause of deep worry to the Government. I do not pretend that it is a cause of anxiety to me.
The Secretary of State might make a joke of what I have said, but he is laughing at the clear discomfort of a group of Conservative Members who have traditionally been among the most loyal to the Conservative party. Perhaps the Government should consider whether, in loyalty, they owe something in return. However, it is not for me to enter into the internal squabbles of the Conservative party and far be it from me to say anything that might exacerbate these little difficulties.
I was worried to learn that the south-west is so impoverished that the hon. Member for Tiverton and his colleagues can afford radios that have only one station arid are therefore obliged to brush up on their Welsh.
Many hon. Members have referred to the review of regional policy. It is right that we all argue our corners on regional policy. In the new White Paper the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have said that the case for regional policy has ceased to be economic and is now purely social. I hope that Conservative Members will impress upon them that that is absolute nonsense. If public expenditure is, as is claimed, so central a part of economic policy, the logical conclusion of no regional policy, regardless of where the boundaries are drawn, is people being incited to move from where there are no jobs to where there are jobs. In so far as there are any jobs at the moment, they are to be found in the south-east, where there is already congestion in terms of housing, schools, hospitals and so on. There would be a duplication of social capital if the Government abandoned regional policy.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State one question to which the Opposition will be intrigued to hear the answer. He will recall that in about 1972, when the


Conservatives were in office, he went into the Lobby to enable the people of Bristol to spend money on the west dock development. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case, would the right hon. Gentleman care to say whether that expenditure and encouragement was wise and, as it has become such a burden to the ratepayers of Bristol, whether he will now ensure that extra provision is made to ameliorate the burden that he helped to impose on them?

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): In the midst of what would otherwise have been a good-natured debate, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made a singularly fatuous end to his speech. The reading of the Crossman diaries would be good practice for him, to see the way in which a decision was made by a Welsh cabal of Ministers determining what would happen. The Conservative decision was to allow the people of Bristol to make their own choice as to whether or not they wished to proceed. As in the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's speech there were references to giving freedom to local authorities, that was an unfortunate reference. We shall award him the blue badge of courage because he came bravely into a debate that had nothing to do with the area that he represents. I mean this in the kindest possible way, but I know that every hon. Gentleman will understand what I mean when I say that one of the matters most keenly felt in the west country is having to listen to too many Welsh voices over the radio and television waves, so the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a brave attempt.
In a greater spirit of kindness and charity, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) on his skill in getting this debate at a tolerably social hour. I know that other hon. Members were involved with that. Irrespective of the subject matter, this is the best way to debate. I have managed, without too much strain, to sit through the debate, and a large number of other hon. Members have done the same, which shows their interest in the subject, and also that the length of the debate makes it possible to do so. This is something that we should remember more often in the future. I have listened to every minute of the debate, and therefore have a difficult task in seeking to wind it up.
I knew that one of the things to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would correctly draw attention was the unbalanced state of the economy of the south-west. It was lucky that we had my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West. Bridgwater is tolerably close to being the hub of the region that is the subject of the debate. If we use the definition used by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, we are concerned with that area of the country that rose to support the Duke of Monmouth. He will remember that the battle of Sedgemoor was in my constituency, and I am conscious of the associations.
I have nothing to add to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton raised, as did my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), about electricity supplies. I am glad that Hinckley Point in my constituency is able to keep the south-west going as it does, but I have nothing to add about the news of an alternative site,

although I am concerned about this. All of us in the southwest remember the events underlying the importance of this effort.
We all welcome here the presence of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), who has sat throughout the debate, although, in his Trappist condition, unable to contribute. None the less, he has shown his interest in these matters. At the risk of endangering his political career I can say, since I worked in his constituency for seven years, that he represents much more the sort of Labour Member that I should expect Labour voters to vote for than some of the more extreme Left-wing Members that they have inflicted on us recently. That will no doubt be the end of his career.
As a number of hon. Members have said, this is by its nature a bitty debate. Inevitably, a number of little points have to be raised. I shall comment on several of the main themes, and I shall ensure that each of the specific points in certain subject areas is conveyed to my right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for them. Thus, on those points that I am not able to discuss I shall ensure that hon. Members receive replies. Practically every hon. Member seemed to find a new point to raise. I thought that the subject matters would run out, but then my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives got on to drains. Then I realised that everyone found something new to talk about. I make no joke about that, because I realise—if I had not, my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) would soon have reminded me of them — the real problems that are involved in economic development, certainly in Cornwall, as well as in other parts of the west country. It is by no means an insignificant matter.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members raised the subject of local government finance, the rate support grant proposals for this year, and the rate capping proposals contained in the Bill that my right hon. Friend will introduce tomorrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and, from the ranks of Somerset, my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), all raised this subject. I think they realise that I am sufficiently knowledgeable about the rate support grant system not to comment in detail on the individual counties. In fact, the south-west's share of the grant is not bad, compared with other parts of the country. I accept that the rate support grant settlement is tough, but those of us who are concerned about public expenditure know that there is no realistic alternative. There will be a debate on the rate support grant, and as a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members are in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this connection, I shall not go into further detail tonight.
However, I should like to say a word about rate capping, because from what has been said in the debate, every authority represented here tonight expects to be affected by the proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose Rates Bill is to be published tomorrow, said that under the selective rate limitation scheme only the highest overspenders in the country—some some 12 to 20 authorities, in all—will be selected for rate capping. My right hon. Friend made it clear that authorities spending below GRE will not be selected, and I assume that that will exclude Devon and Cornwall. Somerset is close to the line. Only Avon will


be affected, and that is not surprising, bearing in mind the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) adduced. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that the shire counties should all be extremely worried, but I want to make it clear that they have nothing to fear from my right hon. Friend's proposals, bearing in mind their present expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) made an important point. We have heard the views of councillors, but we must not ignore the views of ratepayers.
The debate covered a wide range of topics. The importance of agriculture to the whole region cannot be overestimated. I speak at a time of great uncertainty and concern about the outcome of the discussions in Europe and their impact on agriculture. If I was hesitant to speak about the rate support grant and rates, I do not know how to describe my feelings on the possible outcome of the present agriculture negotiations. Clearly, it is a serious matter, and I am as aware as any other hon. Member of its significance.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton mentioned fishing, which is important as a source of employment in the south-west. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and the right hon. Member for Devonport drew our attention to the importance of the defence industries, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and the hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned the significant contribution that the Government defence expenditure has made to employment in the area.
The contributions to the debate have been balanced. Some hon. Members were pessimistic and the view from the Principality was apocalyptic. I prefer the home-grown version to that seen from across the Bristol channel. We all recognise that different parts of the region face real problems. Nowhere in the region is unemployment exactly as we should like it to be.
I was asked about future regional aid. Following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry there will be a consultation period during which views will be invited on the criteria and coverage to be adopted for assisted area status, and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to be involved in that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West made three unattractive illustrations of the operation of the previous regional assistance scheme. I understand that, because there will be a job cost component and the relocation of projects, if there is no net increase in jobs, the new policy will end the unjustified payment of aid to projects which merely shift jobs at the taxpayers' expense. That will be discussed further, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point.
My second unkind remark is directed to the hon. Member for Yeovil. I was worried about whether he had all the information that he needed to make his comments about smallholdings. The interventions made me believe that he would find it useful to gather more information before making an instant judgment. The hon. Gentleman said that the community programme was finished. That is untrue. We have done better than we expected with the programme. We set a budget for this year of £370 million. We are running ahead. I have managed to get a further £10 million to cover the expenditure of the programme that people from all over the country have claimed at the same

time. That has caused real management problems in helping to find employment and activity for unemployed people. We have managed to secure those extra funds and the MSC is now urgently reviewing and taking stock. That will be completed in the new year. We shall then be able to assess the position. I hope that it will be possible then to resume the adoption of further schemes. It is completely misleading to say that the programme is finished. The budget for the community programme this year is £370 million. For next year it is £570 million. To say that the community programme is finished is a distortion.

Mr. Ashdown: The burden of my remarks was not that the community programme had stopped but that a halt had been called for the moment. I want the Minister to understand how deeply disturbing that is for many people who are half way down the line. For example, Wiltshire received the information that it could expand from 100 places to 150 places. The next day it was told to slop. It had taken on supervisors and equipment, but was told to stop.

Mr. King: I say to the hon. Gentleman in the kindest possible way that his words will appear in Hansard. The hon. Gentleman says that people have been caused deep distress. If the hon. Gentleman goes around saying that the community programme is finished, no wonder it is causing deep distress to people. It is not finished and it is about to be expanded to a level of expenditure higher than before. To use words in that way, to say that the "burden of my remarks was" — and I wrote down what the hon. Gentleman said earlier—that "It's all stopped" was quite untrue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to correct it and reassure the many people who will be worried when they see his remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) asked about the Plymouth polytechnic. There was an original proposal about the level of fees in connection with the off-the-job training it is providing. This problem will be reviewed towards the end of 1984. An original agreement was reached with the CBI on behalf of the managing agents, but if I have not covered the point I shall look again at my hon. Friend's remarks and see if I can deal with it more effectively.
I should like to pass on to the point on which most hon. Members focused. I started by referring to tourism, which is of enormous importance to the south-west. I am pleased to see that, at a time when we are concerned about whether the south-west gets its fair share of grants, under the grants available from tourism it is doing significantly better in its proportional share than the rest of the country.
Tourism is an important industry for the south-west and, in that connection, communications are absolutely vital. The point that came across clearly—these debates tend to be bitty and everyone focuses on different points—was the number of right hon. and hon. Members who said, "If you do anything, communications are the key to the improvement of the area."
A presentation was made to me when I was Secretary of State for Transport on the next major road improvements that were to be made. The feature now of the road programme is not the construction of a new motorway network but extensions in areas where the motorway infrastructure is inadequate, and improvements to the A303 feature very prominently on the map and the programme up to 1990, which are available to hon.


Members in the Department of Transport. The construction of bypasses and the renovation of motorways is important for the south-west. I will not, in the interests of time, read out the list of schemes save to say that the note that I asked the Department of Transport to provide for me clearly spells out that
The first priority now is to continue the A30 improvement westwards to Penzance.
It refers to the bypasses of Launceston, Bodmin, and Camborne which have been built. Hayle's is under construction. Preparation work for 11 others is well advanced and a decision was recently announced to proceed with the Okehampton bypass and an announcement will be made today, as my hon. Friend made it yesterday, on the Whiddon Down to Okehamption diversion. I am grateful to him for making that announcement.
Our trunk road programme for the south-west has a value of more than £393 million, of which £70 million of the schemes are under construction at present. There has been a significant increase in the transport supplementary grant for the south-west this year.
In the short time that is available to sum up what has been a wide-ranging debate, I hope that I have covered some of the key points that have been raised. I recognise, as we all do, the impossibility of covering all the different aspects of what is a varied and attractive region which, none the less, has, if I may use the "Euro phrase" of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, the problems of peripherality, which are real enough, the problems of low income, which are associated with it, the problems of population drift to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) referred, and the problems of a considerable concentration of old people. But with that goes a sturdy independence and resolution to tackle its own problems. That has resulted in an above average performance, albeit in very difficult circumstances, leading to a significant fall in unemployment this year, to an increase in job placings and to an increase in inquiries for small business start-ups in the region.
The south-west is a region which, given a reasonable stake in the economy, can show what it can do, and I am encouraged to see, looking at the national scene, that with the low inflation figures that we now have, with the much improved performance in output, with the reduction in unemployment and with the growth of job opportunities, we now have an opportunity to see a rather brighter future for the south-west, which I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will seek to support.

Wales (Home Improvement Grants)

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I cannot recall when last, as a Back Bencher, I spoke on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I suspect that it was during the 1960s. I had forgotten the hour of the day at which one is called upon to speak, and, despite the lateness of the time, I rise because of the intense interest, concern and growing resentment that is felt in my constituency — and the areas represented by some of my hon. Friends who are in the House — about the situation affecting home improvement grants.
I have the privilege of serving a community in which the majority of people are proud to be home-owners, and many of their homes are old and in need of considerable improvement. Hence their enthusiasm when the Conservative Government offered, some months before the last election, the prospect of 90 per cent. home improvement grants. That enthusiasm was heightened almost to a frantic point by the artificial deadlines that were imposed on applications for those grants.
We have had previous experience of such artificial deadlines, so I do not want to go into the argument over that. Such deadlines were tried over a decade ago. As I say, I will not go into the nonsense involved in treating home improvement grants as a sort of supermarket special offer that must be taken up by a certain date. I cannot see how it makes much sense — in housing, personal or family affairs—to force people to make such decisions. I leave that argument aside. Suffice it to say that the Government imposed a deadline and offered generous grants. Now they must face up to the financial consequences of the demand that they created and the deadline that was imposed.
Inevitably, the offer of 90 per cent. grants raised hopes and demands. If the offer was seen as an act of generosity, for the Government now to frustrate those demands and dash those hopes—in other words, to delay in any longterm way turning the applications that were made into improvements—would be an act of callous unfeeling and would lead to considerable resentment. Indeed, there would be as much resentment as there was enthusiasm about the announcement of 90 per cent. grants. However, it appears that the Government are likely to do that. In other words, thousands of home-owners who were offered the prospect of improving their homes with 90 per cent. grants—turning them into the little palaces for which they had plans drawn up—may have their hopes dashed.
Last Monday, in answer to the first of the parliamentary questions, the Under-Secretary of State had to admit that 26 of the 36 local authorities had suspended approvals of discretionary grants. That number has now risen to 33. The Minister admitted last Monday that the 26 authorities represented about 90,000 applications. Now that some further authorities have put their system of discretionary approvals into suspense, the local authorities' action must have caused the suspension of applications from over 100,000 householders.
The Under-Secretary of State did not remind the House that a week earlier he, through the Welsh Office, had issued a request to every local authority to shut down all forms of capital expenditure where there was no contractual obligation attached. In doing so, and by the nature of such a request, he was requesting the suspension


of discretionary payments of this kind. This is exactly the sort of capital expenditure that would be subject to such a request. It is a little wonder that nearly all the local authorities have now suspended discretionary approvals. The Government raised people's hopes and then cynically told local authorities not to spend money in that way. There will be a violent reaction to such behaviour.
After last week's answer, and the request of the week before, we have today some information about capital allocations to local authorities. It is buried away in another written answer issued in a Welsh Office press report issued today to tell us what the capital expenditure allocations are for 1984–85.
I hope that the Minister can confirm that, although the press release issued by his office refers to capital expenditure allocations for 1983–84, it should refer to 1984–85. Unless that is so, the tables do not make much sense. I assume that the document put out on 19 December on local authority capital expenditure 1984–85, and the table which is included therein, refer to capital expenditure allocations for 1984–85. Presumably there has been an error in transcription.
In addition to the problems of the revelations of the past week about the suspension of the discretionary approvals by almost every local authority, we now have the actual capital expenditure for the next financial year, given in a written answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki). Let us take Merthyr. Merthyr's total capital expenditure for the coming financial year is given as £3,348,000. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is the figure for 1984–85, and that it can be compared with last year's figure, published on 23 November 1982 in a full-scale statement subject to questioning, of £4,400,000. If those figures are correct, the total capital expenditure in the borough of Merthyr is to be cut by £1 million. Is that an accurate reading of the figures, comparing the figure published today with that published at roughly this time last year?
Those figures spell hopelessness, disaster and an eternal wait for thousands of people in the borough of Merthyr, and I suspect — if I had the opportunity to analyse the expenditure figures for other local authorities announced today — thousands of people in other local authority areas who have applied for the 90 per cent. grant. Local authorities will be in no position to make those discretionary payments.
I shall illustrate that hopelessness and eternal wait by examples from the communities that I represent. Merthyr is contractually committed to making grants to 1,609 home-owners. The total value of those grants is £2·25 million. Within present limits, the borough can meet only £500,000 of that between now and 31 March. It will have to carry £1·75 million into the next financial year.
In addition, 500 applications are receiving detailed consideration. They amount to about £1·25 million. One borough will therefore carry forward about £3 million into the next financial year for approved grants and those receiving detailed consideration.
If the figures in the press report are correct, that is almost as much as the Government are offering Merthyr Tydfil for all purposes in the next financial year. It may receive a small percentage of the amount held back to ensure that we are all good boys.
That is only a beginning, because it is estimated that by the 31 March deadline another 3,500 people in the borough will have applied for the 90 per cent. grant. If one takes

average expenditure, we are talking about a further £8·5 million demand in the pipeline created and encouraged by the Government. That is now to be throttled by the Government's unwillingness to endorse, underline or provide finance to meet those applications. Under the local authority's capital expenditure programme other considerations arise such as the case of council tenants whose homes need improvement. The Government should not disregard that side of the equation. There is also a percentage of area houses in the community that must be taken into account. This is a major and significant problem.
Let the Under-Secretary of State for Wales admit, whatever argument we may have—and we will discuss the causes of the situation in a minute—that on the local authority capital expenditure figures issued to date, on the growing demand and on the applications that are pouring in, there will be tens of thousands of householders applying for but with no chance of getting grants for home improvements not only in 1983, but also in 1984, 1985 and 1986. Thousands of householders in many communities—those who have already made applications and those who will make applications by 31 March next year—will be condemned to wait not just for months but possibly for years for their grants to come through unless special and specific financial arrangements are made to meet the demand.
This is an argument not just about global sums of money. I do not know how many hon. Members have met this growing problem in their Saturday morning surgeries. A group of individuals came to see me last Saturday, each in his different way illustrating the points I make in the debate. Improvement is more than the collection of some money from an authority. It concerns a whole set of personal decisions that people make about the way they want to live and what they want to do with their homes. At my surgery last Saturday I saw a young couple who were making decisions about when to get married based on when they were likely to get an improvement grant. Young married couples make decisions about starting a family based on when they are likely to be able to carry out improvements to their homes. A classic case at my surgery last Saturday was that of the elderly couple who were trying to decide whether to apply for sheltered accomodation or, if they were able to get a grant, to improve their property and stay in what had been their home and, indeed the home of their parents before them. A host of personal decisions are often attached to when and how people will be able to improve their homes.
If people are encouraged to apply for grant but are offered no certainty about the time scale for receipt of the grant payment, not only will their hopes be dashed but their expectations will be suspended, and often the property in which they live will be blighted.
The Government offered the right to 90 per cent. grant. Let me remind the Under-Secretary of State for Wales of the terms that he set out:
The hon. Gentleman is well aware that all that has to happen is that the applications must be made by 31 March. It does not necessarily have to be processed, approved or paid for. We have had great sucess with the policy, as an enormous number of applications have been made. Indeed, the policy is just as successful as our council house sales policy." — Official Report, 12 December 1983; Vol. 50, c.664.]
I wonder what the hon. Gentleman would say if people were waiting to purchase council houses years after they


had applied for them just as it is likely home owners will have to wait for years after having applied for improvement grants?

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Will the hon. Gentleman explain why those good people had to wait so long to purchase their homes?

Mr. Rowlands: In Merthyr the applications were processed as quickly as could be expected. I make a simple challenge to the Minister. Will he help the local authority to process the grant applications with at least the same speed as it used to process the applications to buy council homes? Will he ensure that the money is available in at least the same timescale? More than 800 houses have been sold, or are in the process of being sold, in Merthyr, and I have received few complaints about delays. There may have been delays in other areas, but I am willing to accept the challenge. Will he ensure that local authorities receive the finance necessary to process grant applications? He certainly goaded them into selling their homes.
However, the Minister must also say how the system will be financed. The Government introduced the 90 per cent. grant, and people responded quickly and enthusiastically to the offer. I hope that at least tonight we will not hear lame excuses, and the shuffling off of the blame for the problems on to the capacity of local authorities to process applications. The hon. Gentleman had better not repeat the criticisms that he made in Adjournment debates and in correspondence with myself and other hon. Members. He cannot say that only a few local authorities have not organised themselves properly, because 33 out of 36 authorities have been unable to implement the policy as handed down in such a hopelessly ill-organised way by his Department. He and his Department must accept responsibility for the problems.
Had the Minister listened to what the local authorities were telling him about what would happen if the policy were implemented in the way that he has chosen to implement it, he would have heard the reasons why such problems would arise. There was no problem in applying for grants. Although there were initial problems in approving them, because of inadequate staffing, Merthyr, Rhymney and other authorities hired extra temporary staff to carry out the job, and the rate of approvals increased.
The real problem in financing the system was that the major factor was outside the control of local authorities—the capacity of local builders to complete the work in the time allowed. Unlike the large-scale renovation of local authority housing, where a local contractor works on a row of houses, these were inevitably one-off jobs carried out by small-time builders. Some were reputable builders, but, alas, some cowboys got in on the rush. The authority had no control over the capacity of the local builders to cope with the demand, and therefore had no control over the payments.There is no point in the Minister repeating the statement that the local authorities should have approved the applications more quickly or should have employed more people. He need not say that they employed only I per cent. of their administrators or technical officers to do the job. That caused the initial bottleneck, but the authorities grappled with that. The financing and the payments were dependent upon the work being done. With the volume of work started by the 90 per cent. applications and the fear of the deadlines, many of

the payments and the financing of the arrangement are way behind the applications and approvals. The real problem is how to unravel the financing of demand on that scale.
In his letter to me on 30 November, the Minister said:
We made special arrangements. Special financial arrangements were introduced for 1982–83 and 1983–84 to enable authorities to meet the demand from the public, but there has never been a suggestion that these special arrangements would be extended into next year.
Those special arrangements are the very ones that will be needed in the next financial year. The applications will pour in before 31 March next year. The additional cost of the 90 per cent. application will be carried on into the financial year 1984–85, and, I fear, beyond that into the following year, and possibly the year after that, as a result of the demand that has been created and the non-existent financial arrangement.
The Minister wants to stop the special financial arrangement, which he recognised and acknowledged was necessary to meet the demand. The demand that has been created will now run, in financial terms, well into the next 18 months to two years. I shall take the most absurd example. Under the Minister's diktat, a householder can apply for a grant on 28 February next year. The financial consequences will not be borne within the two years 1982–83 and 1983–84 suggested in his letter to me. There will be thousands of such cases in every one of the local authorities. The financial consequences will be carried over into 1984–85. It is not the failure of the local authority, but the failure of the building industry to get on with the work.
If special financial arrangements were necessary, as the Minister admits in his letter of 30 November, to deal with the demand created by the 90 per cent. grant in 1982–83 and 1983–84, in the name of Heaven, they will be even more necessary in 1984–85, and the following year, as we start to pick up all the financial consequences of that huge demand and the backlog of applications at the end of this financial year. I hope that I carry Conservative Members with me on that basic and fundamental point.
The Minister has created a demand, which was responded to enthusiastically. He can claim to be a victim of his success, but, as a result of his mismanagement and miscalculation, he must not make thousands of houseowners the victims of those miscalculations. When the Minister decided on the special arrangements and on the 90 per cent. figure, what was the estimate that was made on the financing of the new demand? How could the hon. Gentleman write me that letter on 30 November unless those assumptions and the financing of the scheme were hopelessly, inadequately miscalculated? Thousands of homeowners in my area, and varying numbers of people up and down the Principality, in many local authorities, certainly in the valley communities of south Wales, wanted to take advantage of the scheme, believing in a dream that they were invited by the Government to pursue. Now, unless the Minister comes up with a new special financial arrangement, those dreams will turn into nightmares and those hopes will be dashed.

Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to address the House for the first time.
When, on Thursday, I read the list of subjects for debate today I decided to seek an opportunity to make my maiden


speech. At the time I thought that as we would be at the beginning of the festival of peace and good will it might be appropriate to include some humorous observations, but bearing in mind the events of the weekend and our feelings and thoughts for the victims and their families, I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that a light heart does not belong in the House.
My political life was rooted, until recently, in local government, where the traditions are somewhat different from the parliamentary scene. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should in any way breach the courtesies of the House, I pray that I may be rebuked with the gentleness and understanding which I have seen demonstrated by the Chair when hon. Members have appeared to be wayward.
I am proud to represent, in this great palace, the people of Bridgend, one of the two new Welsh constituences created by the recent constituency reorganisation. I am also proud to be the first Conservative Member ever to represent a constituency in Mid-Glamorgan, which is situated midway between the two great cities of Wales—Cardiff and Swansea—and straddles the M4 and the 125 inter-city rail link from London to west Wales.
Bridgend comprises parts of the two old constituencies of Ogmore and Aberavon. I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) for the exemplary way in which they have served, and continue to serve, their constituents. I thank them and congratulate them on having surrendered, albeit at the behest of the boundary commissioners, those parts of their constituencies which enabled me to make my way to the House.
Bridgend is a constituency of the future but with a past which contributes much to its attraction, stretching from the Roman city of Kenfig in the west to the lovely vale of Glamorgan in the east, and from historic Coity in the north through the pulsating heart of industry and commerce in Bridgend to the gem of the south Wales coast—Porthcawl, my home for part of my life and my love for all of my life; a resort where the sea is silver, the sands golden and the golf royal, and where the health-giving properties are so famed that no fewer than nine right hon. and hon. Members of the Government Front Bench in the previous Administration were tempted to visit it in late May and early early June. The sceptics were heard to say that the visits were intended more to promote the political well-being of the visited than the physical and spiritual well-being of the visitors. I shall not quarrel with that.
Several Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), have been known to make regular visits, for their physical and spritual well-being—

Mr. Rowlands: I go to visit my mum.

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: —as they see their political sustenance in other pastures. They are all welcome at Porthcawl. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had arranged a visit in mid-June, but for her own good reasons she chose to engage in far more wide-ranging activities, the success of which is demonstrated by my presence in the House and the fact that no fewer than 13 of my hon. Friends represent the Principality.
I am well aware of the deep interest of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney in housing in Wales. Indeed, it was because of that interest that I first came to know him when, as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales

responsible for housing in Wales, he visited my local authority, Ogwr borough council, and urged it to embark on the biggest ever housing capital programme. "Spend, spend, spend," he urged, "Go out and try to break the bank," he exhorted. I can imagine how he felt a few short weeks later when he announced a message partly of failure and partly of success — no, the houses had not been built, but yes, the bank was broke. The hon. Gentleman left shortly afterwards for a spell in the colonies.
I have been a member of a housing authority for many years. I have witnessed the highs and the lows in capital investment programmes, new house building, improvement and renovation grants and there have never been sufficient resources. Too often there have been only scarce resources, but I am bound to say that the Government have good cause to be proud of their record on capital housing allocations, which was at its peak of £185 million when the Conservative Government left office in 1974 and declined to a record low of £81 million when the Labour Government left office in 1979. It has now climbed back to £103 million in 1982–83. Those figures are all based on 1978 constant prices.
The Government's record on improvement and renovation grants is even more impressive. Following the record figures of the Conservative Government in 1972–73, when, respectively, 21,337 and 23,694 grants were paid, there was a dramatic fall during the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979, and a record low was hit in 1976 and 1977 when the hon. Gentleman was responsible for housing in Wales. In 1976 only 6,810 grants were paid, and in 1977 only 6,428. Contrast those figures with those for 1982, when 20,966 grants were paid, and those for the first half of 1983, when a staggering 21,966 renovation and improvement grants were approved and paid. The Government have a record which the Opposition must envy.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred to the scheme introduced as a special offer. He knows that it was introduced because there had been an underspending in the previous two years of £85 million by local authorities in Wales. Of course I am disappointed with the backlog of grants awaiting approval. In my local authority 1,000 applications await processing. The responsibility must lie with the local authority.
In November 1982 a backlog had already built up and certain members of Ogwr borough council urged the Labour-controlled authority to redeploy existing staff or take on additional temporary staff to take maximum advantage of what we called the housing offer of the century. But the Labour majority refused to do so. There is no doubt that, had the authority accepted that advice and redeployed only a small percentage of the staff, many of the 1,000 applications now awaiting approval would already have been paid. I understand that a similar pattern is repeated in many of the Welsh authorities.
There is always much that remains to be done for housing. I hope that the pause in approved grants which we are experiencing will not be long-lived. The Government have given a high priority to improving Welsh housing stock, and I believe that they will continue to do so. I believe that if the Member for Merthyr Tyclfil and Rhymney is ever a Member of a Government of any party he will as a gesture of good will, do his best to emulate the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Alex Carlile: We have just heard a most enjoyable maiden speech from the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles). Not only did he survive well into the night—it is nearly 2 am—but he managed to show a feel for his constituency and to present it with a lyricism and poesy that does him proud; and which would also do the Wales Tourist Board proud on any occasion when it wanted to advertise his constituency. The hon. Member showed an aptitude for argument that raises the enjoyable prospect of his having many long discussions with the mother of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). It would be enjoyable to be present at some of those discussions.
We are talking about home improvement grants in Wales. It seems to me that the starting point in any discussion about home improvement grants in Wales should be an examination of the Welsh housing stock, because its state is a pertinent factor in any discussion on that subject.
The Welsh Housing Condition Survey of 1981 showed that during the previous five years there had been a significant deterioration in the standard of Welsh housing. In the five years to 1981, 41 per cent. of Welsh housing had deteriorated in condition. In 1981, 63 per cent. of the houses needing repairs in Wales were occupied by the unemployed, the elderly and the disabled — in other words, by those who through no fault of their own were economically inactive.
Furthermore—the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney adverted to this point — Wales has a higher proportion of owner-occupiers than the United Kingdom in general. What I have said about the economically inactive shows this—that many of those owner-occupiers have means that are far more limited than those of the average owner-occupier in the United Kingdom. Added to that is the fact that the average house in Wales is older than the average house in Great Britain generally.
Therefore, many older houses are owner-occupied or occupied by people who cannot afford their upkeep. We might think that the nettle would have been grasped by producing a reasonable stock of new housing. Unfortunately, within the period 1976–81 with which the Welsh Housing Condition Survey dealt, the creation of new housing in Wales was not showing any real upturn. Further, since 1979 — a date which is significant for obvious reasons — there has been a considerable reduction in house starts in Wales. There has been a reduction of 27 per cent. in new house starts in Wales from the 1979 figure of 11,426 houses to the 1982 figure of 8,108 houses. The 1983 figure looks as though it will be similar to the 1982 figure. Our houses have thus been deteriorating and we have not been building new houses to replace them.
In March 1982 there came what seemed to be a real shaft of light when the Chancellor announced that the maximum rate of grant was to be increased from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. and that local authorities would have unlimited power to make grants. In effect, this meant that improvement grants in Wales were excluded from the expenditure ceilings imposed by the House Investment Programme. That seemed marvellous at the time and the Government launched the programme in a blaze of self-congratulatory publicity — it would be interesting to

know how much they spent on the publicity campaign—but in view of what has happened since one wonders whether they were not indulging in some rather cynical bread and circus politics with a general election looming on the horizon. We heard nothing from them during the election campaign about the cuts that were subsequently to be imposed.
The Government deliberately increased people's expectations, creating a vastly increased demand for grants. It is absurd to blame local authorities for slowness in processing the applications. Many authorities, including my own Montgomery district council, took on extra staff to administer the demand. The staff worked hard, but, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made clear, administrative staff cannot conjure up improvements without enough builders, artisans, architects and surveyors to deal with the demand.
Opposition Members present for this debate represent a cross-section of the constituencies of Wales. I represent a rural constituency. Other hon. Members represent industrial constituencies and the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) represents a mixed residential and industrial constituency. All our local authorities, try as they may, have been unable to conjure up success in dealng with all the applications to date because the building trade cannot be expected to gear up and change the habits of a lifetime, to bring all the schemes to fruition in the unreasonable time scale suggested.
Now, conveniently after the general election, which was preceded by a kind of Keynesian mini-boom partially engineered through the housing investment proposals, the scheme has been cut. The 90 per cent. rate has been reduced to 75 per cent. and we are back firmly under the aegis of the housing investment programme. Expectations were built up and then dashed.
I spent part of this afternoon with the people who actually have to administer the applications, in the environmental health department of Montgomery district council. They now receive as many applications for grants as ever before. They have to deal with the refusals, but they know that they cannot give any acceptances because the prospect of being able to pay out any money before 1986 on the new applications is remote and who knows what will happen afterwards? It is time that the Government told local authorities where they are, not just for the coming financial year but so that they can plan for three and four years ahead, and not be faced with a bottleneck of applications (which are brought on their shoulders by Government policies) which they are powerless to stop or grant.
The consequence of the Government's change of policy on home improvement grants in Wales could be serious. The Government will have to face up to the responsibility for those consequences. The poorest tend to live in the worst housing as the house condition survey made clear in 1981. We all know that poor housing is one of a complex of factors which lead to poverty. The responsibility for poor housing will lie squarely with the Government—partly as a result of their present policy on improvment grants.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that one of the main purposes of the 90 per cent. rate of improvement grants was precisely to help the poorer owner-occupier.

Mr. Carlile: If the Minister and the Government really want to help the poor owner-occupier, why are they taking the money away? The Minister's question, with which I am delighted to deal, highlights the cynicism of the Government's policy. Those who are involved in the administration of justice know that one of the factors in the increasing crime rate, quite apart from anything else—is poor housing. Attacking bad housing helps to reduce poverty, crime and social as well as economic deprivation. Preserving bad housing is simply a cruel and unacceptable policy.
The improvements that have occurred, and which ought to be possible if the home improvement grants scheme were allowed to run its logical and economic course, would also maintain communities. Rural Wales has witnessed enough communities being broken up for political and non-political reasons in the past 150 years. The improvement grant scheme promised, by the improvement of housing in some rural communities—there are many in my constituency—to enhance and strengthen community life. It discouraged people from leaving their own community for better housing in the towns, because they were given the opportunity to make their house in the village or hamlet better. That opportunity is also being removed.
Another consequence of the Government's decision affects employment. There is no better way in which to create jobs — cost-effective jobs — than investing in housing. It has been calculated that housing investment can create a job for about £4,000. In what other industry can that be done? It costs £40,000 to create new jobs in some industrial sectors. We also have the necessary skills for housing improvement. There are skilled building workers on the dole. There would be no skill bottlenecks. Moreover, housing has the advantage of creating work for unskilled labour. Building work also has a low import value. That is another reason why we must ensure that building work continues on as high a scale as possible.
Unfortunately for the Government, their policy has been perceived by people in Wales to be nonsense. We all experience a quite simple reaction to the Government's policy in our constituency surgeries. People are coming to tell us that the Government's policy on home improvement grants simply does not make sense. The more that people talk about this, the clearer it is that the policy does not make sense. One despairs as to whether this message will ever penetrate the Government.

Sir Anthony Meyer: It is my extremely pleasant duty to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles) on an excellent maiden speech. It is not often that maiden speeches are made at this hour, and it is particularly unfortunate that so fine a maiden speech should have been made to such a comparatively empty House.

Mr. Rowlands: There is plenty of quality.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I hope that the few who listened to the speech will be supplemented by the many thousands who will read it. It was a memorable occasion, marked by his great knowledge of the subject. My hon. Friend will know that I have a special fellow feeling for him. He and I both had difficulties in getting into the House, and he and I attribute a special meaning to that much-used phrase "the

rule of law". I am particularly glad to see him here and I am sure that the House will listen often and attentively to his well-informed contributions to our debates.
There was one missing dimension to the debate this evening. Here we are at 2.10 am debating one aspect of Welsh housing, and once again, there is no Plaid Cymru representative present. I am particularly sorry about that because, on this issue, Plaid Cymru is on the horns of a dilemna. On this occasion, I rather sympathise with its rather uncomfortable posture on those horns. Although it would wish to see greater expenditure on Welsh housing, it is concerned that a liberal application of this policy of generous housing improvement grants would have the side effect of encouraging large numbers of people to buy weekend or country homes in Wales and develop them at the public expense, thereby destroying the Welsh character of certain communities.
I do not agree with Plaid Cymru on that, but it has always seemed to me a little odd that the policy of housing improvement grants should be applied with so little discrimination. I accept the need for such a policy in areas of urban decay and even in rural communities where there is bad housing. However, if this policy is applied indiscriminately, it provides a bonanza for people to provide themselves with excellent accommodation largely at public expense when there is no housing need. Therefore, it was legitimate for the Government to look keenly at the public expenditure involved and to reconsider it.
The language employed both by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and, to a lesser extent, the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) becomes rather exaggerated when they start talking about the expectations that have been aroused and so cruelly dashed. It is always unpleasant to have one's expectations dashed, but I can think of expectations more vital and no better founded chat have had to be dashed by the horrible force of circumstances. Although I am sad to see people get less than they hoped to get, I am even more sad to see the building industry deprived of badly needed opportunities. However, I have to accept that these sacrifices are rather more bearable than are some of the sacrifices that people are called upon to make.
My next point is somewhat peripheral to the debate, but it is none the less directly connected to it. One consequence of the inevitable tightening up of the funds available for housing renovation has been to plunge sorne of the organisations that provide sheltered housing, or housing for elderly people, into an uncertain state. I have two examples in my constituency, of one of which I am sure that the Minister is already aware because I have written to him about it. It concerns the activities of the Abbeyfield housing trust, which provides housing for elderly people who are enabled thereby to live more or less independently within a single building, where they have their own furniture, do much of their own cooking, and have certain facilities in common. It is an admirable institution, and enables old people to retain their independence to the end of their days.
However, the movement has encountered certain difficulties and has been plunged into some uncertainty because of the drying up of funds. There is an example in Abergele, about which I have already written to my hon. Friend the Minister. The movement needs to know its prospects for next year before it can embark on a much needed conversion. A somewhat more urgent problem has


arisen at Rhyl, where an Abbeyfield house already exists, but in an area which is becoming almost uninhabitable because of the development of Rhyl town centre. More appropriate premises are available and have been purchased in another part of the town, but they urgently need reconversion—no just conversion, but repairs to prevent damage from damp. The work cannot go ahead, urgent though it is, because of uncertainty about the availability of funds.
I do not expect my hon. Friend to answer my questions tonight, but I want to put the matter on the record, because I hope that the Abbeyfield housing trust and other concerns which do the same work will have the uncertainty taken away. They accept that they will not get all the funds that at one stage they hoped they might get, but they want to know exactly where they stand.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to say that I have read his letter with great care and have replied to it. He should get the reply before the House rises.

Sir Anthnoy Meyer: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, and I am sure that the people who work so valiantly to promote this housing will be equally pleased to hear that.
That is all that I have to say. We have had a valuable little debate, even at this early hour of the morning, and it is a pity that there are so few here to listen to it.

Mr. Barry Jones: I must be brief in view of the miserable hour of the day at which we are holding this debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) that it is a valuable debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles) on his maiden speech, but I do not agree with his strictures on my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I hope the hon. Member for Bridgend will agree that the Ogwr borough council has a distinguished record on housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made a speech which was full of expertise and insight. He has a distinguished record in housing, and he spoke with compassion and concern. I, for one, learnt much from his speech. It is true that 40 per cent. of the total housing stock in Wales predates 1919. The comparable figure for Great Britain is only 29 per cent. Wales has immense and continuing housing defects. Sadly, as the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) implied, the number of unfit houses and properties in bad repair is not decreasing significantly. A total of 83,000 dwellings in Wales still lack one or more of the basic amenities. In the Rhondda, approximately 26 per cent. of the dwellings lack the exclusive use of one basic amenity.
The position of various local authorities on home improvement grants is extraordinary. In Cardiff, 6,487 grants are outstanding. According to local councillors, the public are utterly confused by the Government's stop-go policy on improvements.
Anomalies have arisen from the interpretation of discretionary and mandatory grants. For example, a family of seven seeking to add an indoor lavatory and bathroom to their home were told that such improvements would be

mandatory if they used one of their three bedrooms for the conversion, but discretionary, and therefore no longer allowable, if the bathroom was built as an extension.
Chronic overcrowding exists in Cathays, Canton and Riverside. In the Rhondda, 5,000 grants are outstanding. No more discretionary grants are available. In Swansea, 2,000 applications are outstanding and there is a real problem because of the extreme old age of many properties. My county, which certainly does not have the problems of south-east Wales, faces a considerable challenge with 6,300 unfit dwellings which are not reasonably suited for occupation. About 3,400 have outside lavatories. North Wales overall has the distinctive problem of holiday or second homes. About 3,000 homes are involved and they increasingly prevent home ownership for many young families.
In my district of Alyn and Deeside a queue of 1,150 people await about £3 million worth of grants. The local authority estimates that it will take three and a half years to clear the list. Some of the houses involved have leaking roofs through which water pours; some have no damp courses and this creates wretched and uncomfortable conditions. Some are without inside lavatories, and families are demoralised.
Many applicants for grant are elderly living in pre-1919 homes. Frankly, some applicants will die before the grant is approved. They live their twilight years in growing discomfort. Some are cold, uncomfortable and bitter. Sometimes there is a spectacular decline in property. That is harmful to the resident and shaming to any Government who attempt to cope with the problem. It is unjust of the Government to blame any local authority.
The Welsh office of the Association of District Councils has made some strong comments. It appears to be correct in its stricture of the Government. Recently, it said that it had
expressed continuing concern with the totally unsatisfactory position created by the demand for house renovation grants".
It calculated
that the 37 District Councils will receive some 197,000 applications for grant between April 1982 and March 1985, valued at approximately £610 million".
Despite vigorous efforts by the local authorities to process the huge increase in applications, notwithstanding Government strictures to keep staff levels to a minimum, it is estimated that some 60 per cent. of applications could be outstanding at April 1985. In the view of District Councils these grants may not be able to be approved and work done until the end of the decade or beyond.
The Welsh office of the Association of District Councils advocates a housing plan for Wales to identify the needs and examine ways of meeting the needs over a long period. Perhaps the Minister can respond to that proposal. As the hon. Member for Montgomery said in his cogent speech, the home improvement industry is labour-intensive.
The Minister should not seek to damp down development. The home improvement industry creates jobs, it reduces unemployment, it reduces expenditure by the DHSS on benefits to the unemployed, it boosts the Government's receipts thereby from taxes, it creates demand for building materials and, in effect, it benefits the economy in a positive manner. I think the Minister will agree that it creates happiness, security and contentment.
It is generally believed that the Government are hopelessly wrong on this issue. The Association of District


Councils is right to say that the delays in providing improvement grants will be titanic and that this will have a major impact on housing authorities seeking to tackle long waiting lists, to tackle homelessness, to get on with major repair programmes to council dwellings, and to improve provision for the elderly. The morale of the professionals seeking to alleviate these problems has taken a major blow.
The attitude of councillors dedicated to improving the housing of their electors is one of growing indignation and anger, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney pointed out at the beginning of his speech. Both laymen and professionals in the local authorities feel that their reputations have been traduced by a Government seeking alibis.
The parliamentary performances of the Under-Secretary of State on this subject have not engendered confidence. He has tended to wash his hands of the problems and to put the blame unjustly on to the local authorities. We have observed a ministerial approach which at times has been unconvincing, sometimes insensitive, apparently slapdash and always short-term in its approach. Above all, the House should not forget that the people were not told by the Government at the general election that these miserable and niggardly cuts would take place. Our people have been cheated.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles) on what we would all regard as an eximious maiden speech. We particularly admired his poetic description of his constituency including Porthcawl, and his dry wit drew a smile even from the face of the Opposition.
I have listened with the greatest attention to the points which have been made in the debate. The condition of the Welsh housing stock and the role of the grants system are important matters which merit serious concern. I appreciate that. But I am bound to say that I have not heard any arguments that are substantially different from those that have been put to me on several previous occasions.
Let us go back to basics. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) would not, I presume, censure us for introducing the higher rates of grant. Nor should he: it is a measure which has proved to be enormously successful. There can be no doubt of the reaction of householders in Wales to the opportunity with which we have presented them. The problem we face in Wales, as the hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) have rightly pointed out, is that we have more than 400,000 houses that were built before 1919, many of them in disrepair, and some of them still in need of the basic amenities which are fundamental to achieving a decent standard of housing. In fact, the 1981 Welsh house condition survey found that more than 20 per cent. of our pre-1919 houses were unfit, despite the efforts of successive administrations to rehabilitate the stock. When the new grant rates were introduced, more than 17,000 applications were received in the first three months alone. The grants paid—and the grants which will be paid—will make a substantial impact on the housing stock of Wales and will be reflected in the results of the next house condition survey in 1986. Every repairs grant generated by our initiative represents substantial structural repairs being carried out to one of

those 400,000 pre-1919 houses; and every intermediate grant paid represents one or more of the basic amenities being installed in a house which was previously lacking those amenities. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) that these grants are not available for second or holiday homes.
It is quite clear to everyone that our initiative in raising the rate of grant has had a dramatic effect. It has generated a demand for grants and art interest in improving the stock which has transformed the approach of most local authorities to rehabilitation work. I accept that it will take time for all grant applications to work through the system, but let me once more make it clear that the higher rates are, and always have been, a special temporary measure with a specific cut-off date for applications of 31 March 1984. We have certainly never given any indication that it would extend beyond that date, although it is important for me to emphasise yet again that the deadline is for receipt of applications by local authorities, not for approvals.
As I have said, there is no doubt about the public's response to our initiative. But I am bound to say that there is considerable doubt about the way in which some local authorities have reacted to the opportunity with which they have been presented.

Mr. Rowlands: rose—

Mr. Roberts: I will not give way. There is insufficient time for me to reply as it is.

Mr. Rowlands: What about the resources?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend agrees with me. Opposition Members have been critical about the length of time that the measure has been in operation, but I remind them that when the enhanced rates of grant come to an end next March, they will have been available for a full two years. They were introduced in the March 1982 Budget and then extended for a further 15 months, largely to relieve the considerable pressure that local authorities were under. This should have given every authority the time necessary to adjust its priorities and staff resources to respond properly to the demand generated. Some of them — although the hon. Member for Montgomery disagrees—were extra-ordinarily slow to respond.
As for the levels of resources that have been made available, I remind the House that in the first year of the grant rates being introduced — when there was an immediate response from the public—authorities were told that there was no limit whatever on the amount that they could spend on grants; whatever they could spend.. we would underwrite. And in the second year—this current year — we made perfectly adequate arrangements to cover their grant expenditure. Anything that they spent in excess of 50 per cent. of their total housing allocation, we would cover; again, with no ceiling. The signals to authorities were, I should have thought, abundantly clear.
The result of these measures is that some 34,000 repair grants, and well over 3,000 intermediate grants, have been approved so far. But many more could, and should, have been approved. Some authorities responded quickly to the opportunity but others, I am afraid, were not so flexible or willing to take advantage of what was on offer. Only 18 of our 37 authorities sought an extra allocation for grants in the first year. This year, we expect more to be eligible for additional resources, but still 15 authorities


—more than one third—look like spending less than half of their allocation on grants this year and so will miss out on the chance of having their allocations increased.
I know that it takes time for grant approval to become a claim for payment. Applicants normally have 12 months, once a grant is approved, to complete the works. However, the time between approval and completion is frequently less than that; and, more importantly, authorities are able to make stage payments of grants. It is just not the case that they are at the mercy of the applicant's decision about when to go ahead with his work. There is much that they can do, if they choose, to front-load their expenditure.
Whenever I point out that we have made perfectly adequate financial arrangements, both last year and this year, for authorities to make a big push on grants, the argument always changes tack. Suddenly it is not the resources that have been the problem; it is the constraints on staffing. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was true to form in that respect. But I have very little sympathy with that contention.
Somehow it is alleged to be our fault that local authorities do not put more staff to work on processing grants. I cannot imagine what sort of conception of a local authority gives rise to that view. It is as if the deployment of the authorities' work forces was forever fixed, rigid and unalterable. I certainly hope that that is not the case. I have said before that, on figures provided by authorities themselves, only 1 per cent. of their work force earlier this year was engaged on processing grants, and the authorities estmated that only a further 0·3 per cent. would be needed to deal with the backlog. I find it inconceivable that any authority would be so inflexible as to be unable to make the minimal changes necessary to speed up the rate at which they could deal with applications.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and the hon. Member for Montgomery have said that the number of staff deployed is not such an important factor as the capacity of the building industry. They cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member for Montgomery also argued in favour of the grants because they provided employment.
A great deal of concern has been expressed about the numbers of applications which are stockpiled with local authorities, waiting to be approved. It is a matter of great concern to me, too. I have every sympathy with owners who are being told that they will have to wait a long time—years in some cases—before their applications have been dealt with. [Interruption.] But, as I have tried to make clear, the difficulty would not have arisen on such a scale if many authorities had been quicker to react to the opportunity set before them.
In many cases the authorities have simply failed to respond quickly enough, or have preferred to spend their resources on something else.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Roberts: I shall not give way. I have very little time left.
Now these authorities are expecting us to bail them out, but let me make it quite clear that my Department has given no local authority any grounds for supposing that the special arrangements would be continued. As far back as last February, authorities were told that they could assume that their allocations would be not less than 80 per cent.

of this year's allocation. This was given to them to aid their forward planning, but there was no suggestion that there would also be special arrangements for grants.
It has been argued very forcibly that we should be devoting more resources in the future to renovation grants and, indeed, to housing as a whole. But, frankly, this is an unrealistic approach. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney wants answers to his questions, and wants me to talk about the future, he would do well to allow me to continue.
I understand the propensity of Labour Members to overcommit the nation's resources. We have already seen the result of such policies. I for one do not want to return to the days of rampant inflation such as we saw in the mid-1970s when the hon. Gentleman was in Government. What he must understand is that restraining public expenditure is a cornerstone of our economic strategy. There can be no doubt that this strategy is proving highly effective. Inflation is now less than 5 per cent.—one of the lowest rates in the world.
On current estimates, the local authority overspend in Wales this year could be about £60 million. Of this, housing will account for some £50 million within which, incidentally, grants account for only £30 million. That is in marked contrast to the past two years, when local authorities underspent by £85 million. Even for grants there is not a bottomless purse: we cannot, and will not, simply print pound notes to pay for them. We must pay for them from within our resources. While we have allotted some £50 million extra to cover this year's expenditure—a fact that must surely be welcomed by all the Welsh authorities, whether they are prepared to admit it or not—future expenditure must be covered by the resources available.
Local authorities have had an unlimited bonanza for two years: now the normal rules must apply. The outlook for next year is not bleak. Local authorities have been told today that the 1984–85 provision for Welsh local authority housing is £127 million. This, together with the prescribed portion of capital receipts means that housing authorities will have a total spending power of about £152 million.
We recognise that some councils have had particular problems in dealing with their grant applications and, within the individual allocations, we have sought to help 11 authorities in this category. They are those who are expected to spend more than 50 per cent. of this year's allocation on renovation grants and whose 1984–85 housing investment programme bids for grants exceed 50 per cent. of their total bids. In other words, those who have tried hard to deal with their grant problems and who perceive grants to be the greater part of their need for next year.
Every authority which is planning an enveloping scheme—15 in all—has received specific help. May I remind the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that this year expenditure on renovation grants will not much exceed £100 million? This would seem to be the most that local authorities find they can cope with and I am not sure whether they could sustain that effort for a further year. Even if they do—and I hope they can—about £50 million could still be available for other housing requirements. Frankly, I cannot share the hon. Member's pessimism about the prospects for Welsh housing.
Finally, I ask the House to look realistically at housing expenditure. In 1981–82 authorities spent £96 million: in 1982–83 they spent £138 million. With the aid of our


exceptional overspend facility, expenditure this year will be about £206 million: and if the authorities wish to use all of their spending power next year, as they should if the hon. Member's assessment of need is right, then about £150 million will be spent.
That is a good share for housing, and, in addition, a significant part of the urban development programme is likely to be devoted to housing projects. Details of individual housing authority allocations for next year are now being sent to the authorities and these will be placed in the Library in the next day or so. Our policy on grants remains unchanged. Even after 31 March next year grants will, as matters stand, continue to be available at the rates which applied before the 1982 Budget.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said in the debate on 16 November last:
It is difficult to find a less promising subject than improvement grants for the Labour party to choose for its attack on the Government."—[Official Report, 16 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 895.]
The Opposition have been fully aware of the poor condition of Welsh—

Mr. Rowlands: rose—

Mr. Roberts: —housing and the need to improve our stock. They have been fully aware—

Mr. Rowlands: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I initiated the debate and asked the Minister to confirm whether the figures I have were for 1984–85. He has not answered one question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Roberts: The figures about which the hon. Gentleman speaks are capital allocation figures. The House is discussing improvement grants.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney experienced all that I was talking about in 1974. On 8 May
of that year he told the Welsh Grand Committee that—
"despite the 75 per cent. grant and despite the fantastic rate of house improvement during the past few years, we have not yet been able to arrest a decline in the deterioration of housing stock in the Principality." — [Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 8 May 1974; c. 96.]
—[Interruption.] The hon. Member cannot even listen to a quotation from his own speech.
The Labour Government's own subsequent record was dismal by comparison with the achievement of the previous Conservative Government. The rate of approvals fell from 23,694 in 1973 to 10,954 in the following year and sank even lower in the later years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said. It was not until 1982 that improvement grant approvals reached the 20,000 mark again.
On 16 November last the Labour party attacked us for not making sufficient resources available in the year ahead, and we have had a repetition of the attack in the debate. What a hypocritical charge that is when one looks at the last Labour Government's own record on improvement grants, including the record of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
Of course there is now a backlog of applications, of course the grants are discretionary, and it is up to the local authorities to decide how they will deal with the backlog. The Government's position is absolutely clear, and I stand firmly behind it.

Charities

Mr. Timothy Yeo: I am glad to have this opportunity of introducing a debate on a subject that is of the greatest importance.
The operations of charities now cover every aspect of the welfare and education of human beings in this country and overseas. In addition to people, animals are cared for, protected and cured, buildings are constructed and restored, services are provided, research is conducted; and, indeed, in the field of medical research charitable funding is now the predominant element. Ideas and information are disseminated. There can be very few people in this country who have not been involved in charitable activity, whether as volunteers, as donors or as recipients, at some stage of their lives. The far-reaching nature of charities is one measure of their significance.
Another measure is the sheer sizeof charities. It has been estimated that total charitable income in 1980, the last year for which any reasonably accurate statistics are available, amounted to almost £5 billion. That was 2·2 per cent. of gross national product in 1980. It represented one third of our total defence expenditure in that year, it represented one half of the total rate support grant in that year and it represented one half of the total EEC budget for 1980.
Given all the agonising that we have in the House over those three subjects—defence spending, the rate support grant, the EEC budget—it seems to me surprising that issues relating to charity, whose total economic significance is equal to those items, command relatively little attention from the House. We are not, therefore, talking about peanuts when we talk about charities. Although there are a very large number of very small charities, there are also a small number of very large charities. My own organisation, the Spastics Society, has an annual turnover that is in excess of that of three quarters of the companies floated on the London stock exchange.
However, the diversity and the size are not the only reasons why charities are important. Today, there is a third, and even more pressing, reason. At a time when public expenditure, both nationally and locally, is being rightly and rigorously controlled, the role of charities in supplementing statutory functions and implementing new activities assumes a new and special significance. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the role of charities is greater in the 1980s than at any time since the war. I hope that I have established, briefly, that this debate deals with a matter of the greatest possible significance.
I must emphasise that I do not wish to talk about tax concessions. That does not mean that I am not concerned about tax concessions for charities—I hope to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on that matter, on which I have forthright views, on another occasion. However, I shall mention tax concessions in passing, because the argument has been made—in mentioning it, I do not wish to imply that I accept it — that the proliferation and the lack of regulation of charities is a barrier to granting further tax concessions. Although the achievement of tax concessions is not our primary objective in improving the regulation of charities, it might be a useful side-effect.
The accountability and regulation of charities must be overhauled, because the regrettable fact is that there is growing criticism of the activities of some charities. Even

more regrettable is the fact that much of the criticism is justified. The criticisms can be categorised in three broad ways. First, in relation to the activities of charities, some organisations engage in activities which common sense or public opinion would generally regard as not being charitable in nature. The second category concerns costs, where charities spend excessive proportions of their income on fund-raising or on administration. The third category is outright fraud, where money which is raised by, or on behalf of, a charity is not used for the purpose for which it was raised.
I shall not dwell on the latter category, because, although some frauds may escape detection, existing law and practice are largely sufficient to enable the police to deal with this aspect of the problem. However, I am very concerned about the activities and costs of charities. I stress that my concern is not confined only to what is still, I am glad to say, a few rogue organisations. My concern is about the impact which the publicity that the rogues attract has on the responsible and legitimate charities that make up the majority of the picture. Evidence suggests that public confidence in proper charities is damaged by the activities of the rogues.
The root of the problem lies, first, in an almost total lack of accountability by charities to their donors, their voluntary workers and, in many cases, to their client groups. It lies, secondly, in the inadequacy of the existing regulation machinery. It is almost impossible for anyone to find out financial information about a charity unless those who run the charity choose to make it available. Astonishingly, the Charity Commission does not receive annual reports and accounts from charities on a regular basis.
Under present law, there is a category known as exempt charities, which need not file accounts. Whatever the merits of permitting that group to conduct its financial affairs in secret — it is hard to see that any public interest is served by it — numerically, the substantial majority of charities are not exempt and are obliged by law to file accounts. Yet research undertaken last year by the Spastics Society showed that no less than three quarters of all charities had not filed accounts with the Charity Commission during the past five years. A great many charities have never filed any accounts since they were registered with the Charity Commission, so a large proportion of charities are not meeting the existing legal obligations. That is not as surprising as it might seem at the outset. The Charity Commission does not have the staff to check whether accounts are being filed. It has no means of enforcement if breaches of that obligation occur. I am not aware of any action taken by the Charity Commission on this issue other than to write a letter to the charity concerned when a member of the public draws the attention of the commission to the fact that the accounts are out of date.
That is all the more astonishing when one recalls the charities' income of £5 billion a year. Another aspect that makes it less acceptable is the fact that the level of direct Government financial support for charities has rapidly increased in the past few years. Between 1976–77 and 1981–82, Government grants rose from £36 million to £130 million a year. Grants from quangos, mostly the Manpower Services Commission, went up from £28 million to £100 million. Local government support increased and tax reliefs were extended.
Charities enjoy complete exemption from income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. They receive legacies completely free of capital transfer tax. They receive donations under covenants and can recover income tax on them. They receive mandatory rate relief to the tune of 50 per cent. and in many instances they receive 100 per cent. rate relief from local authorities. They are exempt from paying the national insurance surcharge. They have a comprehensive package, which many of us fought for and welcome, but it is uniquely beneficial. There is no other category of organisation that enjoys similar taxation privileges. The taxpayer pays for them. It has been estimated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the annual cost of those tax concessions is about £400 million a year. If a taxpayer who is contributing to that through his taxes wishes to inspect the financial accounts of three quarters of the organisations that receive that money, he cannot do so.
Therefore, my first proposal is that all charities should be required to file their annual accounts regardless of their category or status. I cannot see any justification for continuing to allow some organisations to cloak their financial affairs with that shroud of secrecy. If there is concern about the extra administrative cost which might be incurred, that could be covered by introducing an annual filing fee, which a private company has to pay. It might not need to be set at the £20 level for a private company. Perhaps £10 would be sufficient. If the consequence of introducing that annual filing fee was to freeze out some of the small charities that felt that £10 a year was an unacceptably high price to pay for their charitable status, that would be beneficial in tidying up the charity sector. I do not believe that in the eyes of the public £10 a year would seem an excessive price to pay for access to the unique range of privileges that I mentioned.
The key to the proposal would lie in the method of enforcement. I suggest using the same procedure adopted for private companies. Just as the directors of a private company are responsible for ensuring that their accounts are filed on time, the trustees of a charity would become liable. If their accounts were more than a year overdue in being filed at the Charity Commission, the trustees could be fined, and perhaps the fine could accumulate on a daily basis. A further benefit of that proposal would be to concentrate the minds of the trustees on their responsibilities. Too often, worthy individuals full of good intentions take on the responsibilities of trusteeship but find that they cannot devote the time necessary to supervise the affairs of the organisation for which they are legally responsible. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to learn that that is the only legislative change for which I call. I do not expect him to say that he will have time to deal with such legislation in the near future, but if he will back in principle such a desirable, simple and cost free reform, perhaps a way can be found to provide the necessary parliamentary time in the not too distant future.
A second means of improving charity accountability could be access to the annual general meetings of charities. At present no obligation exists whereby the public or the press are allowed to attend such meetings. I suggest that any donor to a charity should be admitted to the organisation's annual general meeting upon production of the appropriately authorised receipt, allowed to speak and ask questions, although not to vote. I fail to understand why any responsible or properly run charity should refuse

to adopt such a procedure. Legislation is not necessary for the introduction of such a desirable reform. The Minister could promote such an approach by saying that from 1984–85 his Department will request any charity to which it makes a grant to open its annual general meeting in the manner that I have described. He must call upon his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Security, and others that make financial contributions, to adopt the same procedure. I shall press this matter in future if my hon. Friend is unable to give such an undertaking in the near future. I do not believe that the public interest is served adequately by pouring taxpayers' money directly into organisations which appear reluctant to submit to the most innocuous and inoffensive public scrutiny.
A third means of improving the accountability of charities involves fund-raising and administration costs, which are growing areas of controversy. In an increasingly competitive environment, some expenditure is inevitable if funds are to be raised on any scale and if administration is to be undertaken. To raise the tens of millions of pounds from voluntary sources, which leading charities need to undertake their most important and valuable work, they must take a professional approach. Reasonable expenses are acceptable and accepted by the public. However, examples exist of fund-raising costs absorbing almost 65p in the pound, and that is not acceptable. I believe that public scrutiny will be the best corrective measure. It will be more effective than a ban on paid fund-raisers, which would be virtually unenforceable.
I propose that a group of interested parties — accountants, fund-raisers, administrators and so on—should collaborate with the aim of producing a workable definition of what constitutes fund-raising and administrative costs. The task will not be easy but well worth undertaking. Once a definition had been agreed, it could be applied by auditors to all charity accounts. The real step forward would be for charities to include their expenses ratio in all their fund-raising literature, advertisements and promotional material. This procedure could be introduced on a voluntary basis. Once one group of major charities adopted my suggested approach, pressure could be exerted by prospective donors to other organisations to follow suit. I do not seek Government action for my reform, hut an endorsement by my hon. Friend would be of inestimable value.
In discussing the inadequacy of the existing policing machinery, I do not wish to criticise the Charity Commission. Within the limits of its brief and resources. it does a good job. I commend, from my own experience, the way in which the chief commissioner, Mr. Denis Peach, has in the past 18 months introduced a more imaginative and flexible interpretation of the role of the Charity Commission.
The difficulty is that the commission's functions are enshrined in statute and its manpower is limited. It is unable to provide policemen for charities, although it investigates specific individual complaints. It is also apparently unable to take action to remove or withhold charitable status from organisations whose activities would, by the standard of common sense, render them ineligible for charitable status. On its own admission, the Charity Commission does not even know how many registered charities there are. That was uncovered by the same research that I mentioned earlier.
There is an urgent need for those functions to be performed by someone — whether it be the Charity


Commission or whatever. It may be that cumbersome legislation will be needed to enable the commission to undertake such functions. If so, the solution may lie in a form of voluntary self-regulation, for which charities seem especially appropriate. I suggest that a new body—which, for convenience, I shall call the Charity Council—should be established, composed of representatives of charities, professions, Government, the public and so on. It could be supported by paid secretariat to ensure that it functioned effectively.
The tasks of such a council would be three-fold. First, it would produce an acceptable definition of charitable activity, and keep that definition under review in changing circumstances. Of course, it would not be easy to arrive at such a definition. It could not be simple and it could not be brief, but it is urgently needed. Who better to produce it than a body involved with charities with the best and strongest motives for preventing abuses?
The council's second task would be to oversee the application of the definition to existing and new charities. The courts would continue to be the forum for testing the legality of individual charity activities. All registrations would continue to be undertaken by the Charity Commission, but the council could monitor existing charities' activities and could respond to public queries. It could also give guidance to new charities, and the Charity Commission might find it convenient to consult with such a body.
The third task would be to act as a watchdog over the charitable sector and to respond to individual complaints. The expansion of charitable activity has created the need for such a body that could respond more flexibly to public complaint than the Charity Commission. The aim would be to identify malpractice or gross mismanagement. The threat of publicity might be the best means of creating pressure or corrective action.
A council drawn up along those lines could have statutory power, but equally it could be set up on an entirely voluntary basis. In the latter case, its authority would derive from the calibre of its members. In many ways, a voluntary basis would provide more flexibility than decisions that required legal enforcement and interpretation in the courts. Faced with the possibility of criticism from such a council, a charity whose activities were held to be outside the scope of charitable activity might prefer to correct that voluntarily rather than face adverse publicity and the consequence of reduced income.
Zealous as ever to avoid adding a burden on to public spending, I can even suggest how such a council could be financed without recourse to public funds. The great success of the shorter period for covenanted donations to charities has significantly increased income from that source and the tax that is recovered thereby. I suggest a 1 per cent. levy on all tax recovered by charities, to be used to finance the operations of the Charity Council. In that way, the burden of financing that body would be thrown on to those most able to bear it.
The precise role of such a council should be discussed between the Home Office and the Charity Commission, together with representatives from the charities. I call upon my hon. Friend to respond as sympathetically as he can to that suggestion and, perhaps, to initiate such discussions to determine whether the need for such a council could be substantiated in detail.
I remind the House of my original arguments. Charities play a major role in our national life, and spending limits have enhanced their importance. The activities of rogue charities are undermining confidence in legitimate organisations. Action is therefore needed not just to eliminate malpractice but to ensure that the responsible organisations can continue their work. The fact that the majority of charities are doing good and responsible work which is of great importance to the whole community will not prevent damage to the public perception of charities as a whole. If action is not taken soon there could be a major loss of public confidence which could result in many organisations and their beneficiaries suffering. We must avoid the continuing stream of purely negative publicity. My solution involves mainly voluntary action, but it is voluntary action of a sort that needs Government encouragement and stimulus to get it going.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can assure the House that appropriate steps will be taken. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the British people want to see our charities performing a wide range of functions effectively and positively. My proposals are designed to ensure that the tremendous energy and resources that exist within the voluntary sector continue to be harnessed for the benefit of the community as a whole.

Mr. Ray Powell: I am glad to participate in this debate because it is of profound interest to a number of people, especially hon. Members who are responsible for and participate in a number of charitable organisations and perhaps sit on the board of one of those organisations. I am the chairman of one charitable organisation called CATO—Community Activities and Training in Ogwr.
Ogwr is a borough council in the Ogmore valley. About three years ago we set up that organisation to participate with the Manpower Services Commission in establishing job opportunities within the borough. When we attempted to register CATO as a charitable organisation, it took us about two of the past three years to have it approved and established as a charity eligible for all the benefits that such an organisation receives.
I view with some trepidation the rules and regulations governing charitable organisations, and I agree with some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo). Last year CATO established positions for 264 persons within the group and applied to the Manpower Services Commission for a further placing of about 346 positions. Because of the cuts, reductions in job places or the drawback of funding — whatever terminology is in keeping; it depends on which side of the House one sits—voluntary groups such as CATO face the extra burden of worrying about resources. This is especially true when the schemes have already been approved and it is an unmitigated disgrace.
At an urgent meeting with the Manpower Services Commission we were told that the commission had to reduce its schemes substantially. With unemployment escalating in Ogmore and the establishment of schemes to try to create jobs, we were able—despite cuts in the money available for the community programme — to establish about 264 places in a period of two years. The schemes had been monitored and audited regularly by the MSC, but having established and secured MSC approval for 264 places from January 1984 the secretary of CATO


was told by a member of the MSC staff at a hurriedly convened meeting in Pontypridd that the number of places had to be reduced to 200.
Our charitable organisation had already committed itself for 1984 in terms of buildings, land and other aspects and is thus responsible for the amounts of money agreed in 1983 for next year's programme. The cut in the community programme of 64 places in Ogmore, some 800 in mid-Glamorgan generally and thousands in Wales as a whole has thus placed a great burden on charitable organisations, which now have to meet their commitments with reduced funds from the MSC.
The reduction of 64 places in our scheme means a reduction of £250,000 in funding. For that reason I put down early-day motion No. 331 in the following terms:
That this House expresses alarm and concern at the action of the Manpower Services Commission and the Government in reducing the number of places in the Community Programme for 1984; and demands an early debate and a reversal of these policies that will substantially reduce employment opportunities for the 1,142,898 who have been unemployed for more than 52 weeks.
My purpose was to highlight the problems facing those of us who have established charitable organisations such as CATO to try to create employment in our areas. If Conservative Members are wondering whether the community enterprise programme is really related to the present debate, I suggest that if their debate was No. 14 on the list they would probably have tried to get in now, just as I have.
Perhaps the Minister will find out how many similar schemes are run as charities and how many Members of Parliament and others give up their time, effort and energy to run them. There is a considerable burden on suh people, especially when ridiculous cuts are imposed in programmes that were approved in October.
When asked what opportunities the long-term unemployed had been afforded, the Secretary of State for Employment said that 106,000 places had been filled by October 1983. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in February 1983 that 130,000 places would be provided for the community programme at a cost of £550 million. The MSC has informed us that it has had to reduce the number of places available, as it has spent that £550 million. The result is that several schemes similar to that of which I am chairman have been reduced substantially, although they have planned for, costed and agreed funding—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is straying into the community programme and away from the subject of the debate. It will be extremely difficult for the Minister to answer points which are wide of the subject of the debate.

Mr. Powell: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and shall stray no further, except to say that if we are to establish ourselves as charities to run similar schemes, trustees of charitable groups must have some protection. When a Minister promises funding, we must be assured that it will be made available.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): From the Abbeyfield Society to the World Wildlife Fund, the web of British charities stretches throughout society. As my hon. Friend

the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) said, their resources are colossal and many argue that their functions are indispensable.
I thought that we had come some way from what obtained in 1834 when Dr. Folliott replied to the Brougham commissioners:
The state of the public charities, Sir, is exceedingly simple. There are none. The charities here are all private and so private that I for one know nothing of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South told us that we had not come quite as far as I had thought. I am a Conservative. That means, even if it often does not seem like it, that I instinctively distrust the politician's desire to meddle. I have no doubt that wholesale re-writing of the Tudor statute on charitable uses would almost certainly do more harm than good. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend that there are worrying signs that all is not well.
It seems far too easy for men and women to set themselves up as charitable organisers and then, through incompetence at best or through fraud at worst, gull the public into parting with large sums of money of which only a tiny fraction serves the objects of the charity. The rest keeps the fund-raiser in a state which is a great deal more comfortable than that of any of those whom he or she purports to serve.
Too often, trustees seem unable to prevent that from happening. I do not know all the details, but I halve often observed that trustees of charities seem to leave outside their charity boardroom door nearly all of the skills for which they have been chosen as trustees. I remember a famous charity on the board of which sat itidges, accountants, academics, bank managers and business men, all of whom were highly successful, and yet on the centenary of that organisation' foundation the centenary appeal raised exactly minus £1,000. That sum represented the float which was given to the professional fund-raiser who was employed to run the appeal.
Perhaps we should look more closely at the quality arid expertise of charity trustees, not in their jobs outside, but as trustees. It is a significantly different role, too often confused with management, or too narrowly confined. This is the first time that I have heard my hon. Friend's idea, but it is admirable, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look at it seriously.
There is the Charity Commission, which is the lineal descendent of Brougham's great attempt to clarify and codify the behaviour of the charities. Often attacked and frequently derided, the Charity Commission is a creature of the legislation passed in the House, and, if it is defective, that is almost entirely because the House and the other place have made it so. If we want new charities to file accurate accounts every year within a few weeks of the year end, as we should, if we want those accounts to be examined regularly, and if we want fund raisers' records to be examined and their operations registered, as we should do well to insist, we should say so in law and give the charity commissioners the resources to do the work. It is not the slightest use kicking a watchdog from which the House has removed the teeth.
There is also the voluntary services unit, wrongly removed from its central position in the Civil Service Department by the then Labour Government and forced to rest in one of the major spending Departments. Nevertheless, it is an instrument for producing the


voluntary changes urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give it that role.
There is a whole range of useful little measures which could be taken, few of them new, to improve the operation of charities. Some of my hon. Friends and I shall be looking at them to see which of them would do the most good and the least harm. I should like to see the creation of an "elephants' graveyard" where outdated charities could be painlessly dispatched or transmuted to more relevant purposes.
The Charities Aid Foundation, working with the Charities Commission and many trustees, has gone some way down this tangled path, but there are still too many charities locked into the service of their staff rather than of their proper clients by the sheer difficulty of meeting the needs for redundancy payments, or proper pension provisions for members of staff who were probably grossly underpaid in the early years of their service. Such problems lay a dead hand on too many organisations and bring charities into disrepute. It is still far too cumbersome to achieve a redirection of an outdated charitable purpose, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look at this.
Much more purposeful support should be afforded to the county surveys, which would make possible the useful redirection of numerous tiny local charities which are being strangled through lack of exiguous sums that are required to make them effective. There is also the famous conflict over what is meant by political activity. I beg the Government to tread more delicately even than Agag in handling this one. The day that Oxfam pointed out that a single cut in the United Kingdom overseas aid programme took more money from Oxfam's potential beneficiaries than it had managed to raise in 10 years, charities all over Britain realised that their work could be confined only in part to direct assistance. It was indispensable to them, and to the bodies which they were established to serve, that they should raise the public awareness of the plight in which their clientele subsisted. Elizabeth Fry and William Wilberforce would have recognised that move instantly and applauded it.
From then on, it became much harder to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. I believe that it should be left to politicians, or others who disapprove of a charity's policies, to argue against them publicly rather than to seek to have them emasculated by law. We shall lose more by over-zealous limitation of the charities' freedom to rouse our concern than by its indulgence. However, it is appropriate to ask how a charity divides its time and resources and to ask the public to pass a verdict on the excercise of that choice.
When all is said and done, these useful measures, and others like them, would simply be adjustments to the hem of the great robe which is British charities, and we have a duty not to run the risk, in our zeal for reform, of unpicking the whole garment. In the operation of charities, we possess one of the great instruments for enabling British society to adapt to the colossal changes that lie before it. Do we have to work out how to adapt to the arrival of new minorities and the resurgence of old ones? In charities we find the reservoirs of culture, religion and

voluntary enthusiasm that keep the minorities alive and provide us with the means to understand and work with them.
Do we have to find new ways of defining employment and the other activities that give dignity to our young, our old and our prematurely retired? Our charities, which so often create the challenging mixture of work and fruitful leisure, will surely help us to find the answer.
I am a trustee—a very new trustee—of Community Service Volunteers. It is a charity whose programmes use the talents of the young who have no other work, and the elderly but still vigorous who long to put their enthusiasm and experience to work in the service of others. It is among the leaders in the field. In passing, may I say that it manages youth training schemes at half the cost of the Manpower Services Commission. There are, and will continue to be, questions about the relationships between such programmes and the trade unions and others concerned with traditional full-time employment, but that is a different debate. All that we need to note is yet another example of how charities are seeking ways of answering the great questions about the future of work and human dignity.
When we have to seek new ways of organising our communities to provide for themselves services which used either to be provided for them, or were never thought of, we often turn to charities for the moral and financial support for experimentation. Community care schemes for the old, rural bus services, community shops and much else have often originated through the willingness of charities to risk a year or two's income for the sake of the future.
For all those reasons, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to those who seek to improve the functioning and accountability of charities, and to act decisively, but with great care. They are not lightly to be tampered with.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I do not suppose that there is any other area of activity which deals with the sums of money that we have heard about this evening, where the legislation governing it dates back to the 17th century. Nevertheless, as we have heard, the legislation that governs the operation of charities goes back as far as 1601.
I do not want to go over ground that has already been covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo). He has already described a wide range of reforms. In my few words, I shall concentrate on the activities of charity fund raisers. I imagine that the first acquaintance that all of us have—or had—with charity fund raisers was when we went through the porch of our local church and saw the usual injunction over the doorway to the effect that some local worthy had endowed 20 shillings per annum in perpetuity to care for the needs of the poor of the parish. We have come a long way since that type of charity fund raising.
The figures are staggering. As far as one can ascertain, there are about 146,000 registered charities in this country. There are a further 10,000 charities which are not technically registered but which are known to the Charity Commissioners. Beyond that, there are other charities. The figures that are produced every year by way of income have already been mentioned. Total income receipts in the last financial year for all the known charities were a


staggering £5,000 million. Even in the top 200, voluntary donations alone, ignoring other sources of income, produced £329 million.
When discussing such figures one talks about a complete transformation in charity fund raisers and charity fund-raising. Gone are the days when the traditional fund raiser was the little lady selling lifeboats on pins or organising the charity ball so that the hoi polloi can turn up to see the quality at play. Such fund raising has long since passed.
In this day and age, to raise the sums required, fund raisers have to fish in deep waters. Any fisherman knows that in deep water one finds not only mermaids but sharks. It is the activities of the sharks in charity fund-raising to which I shall draw attention.
I cannot think of a better way to illustrate the fund raisers with which we are concerned than to mention two instances in an article by Ian Scarlet in the Sunday Times on 17 July. 1 pay tribute to the investigative work that Ian Scarlet has done in bringing such matters to our attention. Of one instance he says:
On Sunday, March 26, Princess Margaret attended the annual Children's Royal Variety Performance at the Haymarket Theatre, London, in aid of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, of which she is president. A souvenir programme compiled by NSPCC volunteers, attracted advertising revenue of £27,291. Expenses of publication, including all printing and paper, accounted for less than 10 per cent. of gross. The NSPCC benefited to the tune of £25,000.
That activity is at one end of the scale. The other end of the scale was illustrated in the same article which said:
Two months earlier, a programme for a Grosvenor House 'Star Ball', in aid of the Tadworth court children's hospital appeal",
was compiled by a charity selling advertising space. In this case the space was sold by professional tele-sales people at rates higher than the NSPCC amateurs would have dared to ask.
The article says:
Companies and celebrities happily shelled out between £475 and £695 a page because they thought the bulk of their money would go to the Surrey hospital, then under threat of closure and in urgent need of a £1·4 million injection. Total revenue amounted to £79,250. The hospital received only £13,462, rather less than 17 per cent. of the gross."
It is obvious that the incidents are examples of the two extremes. One can imagine that the NSPCC fund-raising was done by amateurs on a shoestring. They were able to keep expenses down. The expenses might justifiably have been more. At the other end of the extreme it cannot be right that the public should donate large sums, thinking that they will help charities, when that is not so.

Mr. Yeo: It is important that the House should know that that fund-raising was undertaken without prior consultation with the Tadworth court hospital. As soon as the trustees became aware of what had happened, steps were taken to prevent any further unauthorised fundraising.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right. I was about to say that the activities by some charity fund raisers are not known by the organisations for which they purport to raise money.
The difficulty is that the law is an imperfect instrument for curbing the type of incident to which I have referred. In the grossest cases, the criminal law can step in and fraud is relevant. But there are activities in a grey area that are a long way from fraud, but the public would be concerned if they knew the sums that can be taken in commission and

expenses. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South referred to another incident known to us both when about 65 per cent. of the take went in expenses and commission.
It is sometimes said that it is wrong to make a profit out of charities. I do not go that far. That is a puristic way of looking at the issue. One might as well say that it is immoral to make money out of death and that therefore undertakers should do the work free. The proposition makes no sense when reduced to that.
In this day and age, when we are talking about raising massive sums, the raising of that money will require a great deal of professional expertise. It is entirely right that people who operate in the area should receive a proper rate for the job, and it is clearly in everyone's interest that they should do so. But the difficulty at the moment is that there is no way of policing or regulating what a proper take is. It is fair to say that the Charity Commission and the Charities Aid Foundation have taken a great deal of stick at times because people imagine that in some way they are responsible for regulating the take in cases such as I have described. The difficulty is that there are no regulations for that and, at the moment, if a charity fund raiser wants to raise money for a charity, unless he is in breach of some contract into which he has already entered with the charity concerned, it would appear that society is powerless to ensure that the money is applied in the way that it should be applied.
Therefore, it appears to me that there is no alternative but for government to say that, regrettable though it may be, they will have to introduce some positive proposals to curb the charity fund raisers whom I have described. There are two areas where they must intervene. First, there must be proper regulations concerning what rates of commission and expenses is payable. It is not for me to try to suggest what those rates should be. They may have to be worked out in individual cases, but there must be some structured organisation and regulation to ensure that it is done properly.
Secondly, there must be proper regulations to govern the relationship between charity fund raisers and charities. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South has already pointed out the position where a charity fund raiser has not cleared his activities first with the charity concerned. I accept that point entirely. What about the relationship between a charity which sets itself up and is able to register because it has charitable interests, and then works hand in glove with a bogus charity fund-raising operation? That relationship must be examined and regulations must be introduced to safeguard it.
My final comment on this aspect—it is more by way of comment than a proposal for reform—is that there must be a much greater awareness among charities themselves that when organisations come to them, often to raise money for them in this way, all that glitters may not be gold for them and that they will have to look closely at what they are being offered.
People sometimes ask, "Does it really matter?" If a charity fund raiser, for the sake of argument, raises £1 million, keeps £900,000 for himself and hands over £100,000, at least that is £100..000 which the charity would not have received. The difficulty is—it is why the topic strikes me as so vitally important—that if the public think that every time they hand over money to a charity they are likely to be contributing at the rate of 65 per cent. to what they might see as a capitalistic fat cat, it will mean in the end that people will not donate to private charity.
It is inevitable as we approach the 21st century that the state will take a greater and greater part in looking after those who cannot look after themselves, and looking after the less fortunate in society. If we were ever to reach a stage, however, where it was in the public consciousness that there was no point in trying to make a private donation and that it should all be left to the state, as a society we would be greatly impoverished. It is a worthwhile and noble sentiment on the part of people of their own volition to contribute to charity, not simply to leave it to the state through their taxes but to make a positive contribution themselves. The wickedness behind the way in which some—by no means all—charity fund raisers operate works to this disadvantage—it brings all charity into disrepute, which ultimately makes us all a great deal poorer.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) on initiating the debate. I know that he is experienced in this sphere. I first got to know him when he was with the Spastics Society, where he did an excellent job. I listened carefully to his remarks today and agreed with much of what he said.
The word "charities" covers such a wide field that it is difficult to generalise. Some charities are concerned entirely with work overseas, some operate nationally, while others have a purely local function, and therefore it is not easy to suggest ways in which charities should operate because inevitably one runs counter to the wide range of organisations that exist.
At one level charities provide services that the public sector also provides. That is particularly true of local charities, and some cover some areas that overlap with local government services. Although one does not want to make the subject more controversial than it need be, there are occasions when charities are seen as an alternative to the public sector, and that is an issue about which I am greatly concerned because it is sometimes an argument for cutting public expenditure. I do not want to develop that at length, but one must be careful, and in my area I have seen that argument arise.
Nevertheless, there is a close relationship between some charities and local groups in the community, and charities have a number of advantages over other ways of meeting the same ends. Sometimes, charities working through local community groups can be very local indeed in their contribution and therefore can be sensitive to local and community needs. Further, by their nature, charities can often be experimental; they can move quickly and they can do things that the public sector, local government and larger organisations cannot do. I hope that it is always true—although it may not be in every case—that charities are non-bureaucratic. In other words, they should be able to act quickly and not have an enormous bureaucratic structure that is sometimes the case in local government. Charities have the supreme advantage of being able to involve the local community or people who, even on a national basis, would not normally be brought into their activities, and that is a strength because they achieve a level of commitment that cannot be achieved when the same ends are sought to be achieved by different means.
I followed with interest what the hon. Member for Suffolk, South said about accountability, and I share his

views on that. If we were able to establish a greater measure of accountability for charities, we should establish a safeguard against some of the abuses to which reference has been made in the debate, abuses which sometimes get close to fraud, if they are not fraud, and abuses which, although they are not criminal, are not the sort of activities that one wants to associate with being the result of generous donations by people whose concerns are with the end result and not with some middleman who hives off too much of the money. I see that operating both at the level of financial accountability as well as accountability in relation to the activities of the charities.
As for the more difficult question of political activity, the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) urged the Charity Commissioners not to be over-zealous in their approach to this problem, and he thought that rather than try to define political activity, it should be left to politicians. If I have misrepresented him, I am sure that he will correct me. I agreed with his general approach—that we should be more relaxed in our definition of political activity—but I parted company from him in his suggestion that we should leave it to politicians.

Mr. Rowe: That was not quite the impression that I meant to give. I meant to say that there has been much anxiety about the way in which some charities have stated their objectives in terms which political and other commentators and politicians have seen as being political, and — because they do not agree with them — wrong. Rather than trying to legislate against that, I believe that it is up to politicians who disapprove of the way in which a charity is proceeding to say so in public and argue the case out. I did not mean to be understood as saying that it should be left to politicians to do the defining.

Mr. Dubs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for having clarified that point. I had not understood him totally, but I part company with his argument. The danger is that the process of public debate and controversy about whether a certain charity is going too far in political activity will itself subject the charity to rather more pressure than is fair. It may cause the charity to pull in its horns and go for the safe option, and that will not necessarily be desirable. All too often in the past few years, charities have been criticised for getting too close to the area of political activity, with the result that they have been forced to defend themselves rather than to get on with the job. If we defined in a more open and sensible way the sensible limits of such activity, the charities would know what was the sensible way to behave, and how far they could go. Political arguments throughout the country in recent years would suggest that the Labour party would draw the boundaries in a rather more relaxed way than the Conservatives.
It is difficult to draw a clear demarcation line, but I should like to have a tentative shot at it. On the one hand, there is activity aimed specifically at the transfer or retention of political power in a local authority or in central Government. That would be clearly unacceptable in a charity. On the other hand, one asks whether charities should be able to take part in, and possibly even to initiate, debates on public policy and administration in the areas related to their own activities. I would regard that as perfectly acceptable. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent nods his head, but some of his colleagues would not be as liberal as that nod would suggest. Some would count that as political activity.
We have a responsibility for drawing lines, but we should be relaxed about it and not prevent charities which are expert in a particular field from being able to contribute to public and indeed political debate, provided that their contribution is not solely aimed at furthering the aims of one political party at the expense of others. The charity commissioners are much too restrictive in their definition of political activity.
There are some other ways in which I consider that the charities are unduly constrained at present, but I will not develop them in detail. First, there is unemployment. It is my understanding that charities are limited in what they can do in the area of unemployment, including job creation.
Secondly, there is the general giving of information and advice. My experience is that charities that are active in that field find it difficult to operate, and that the constraints forbid some such organisations to be classified as charities at all.
Thirdly, there is racial harmony. Following a court decision some years ago, the promotion of racial harmony is not within the terms of reference which the charity commissioners permit. I find that regrettable. Racial harmony is an area in which some charities ought to be allowed to operate.
Next, there is the general question of human rights, which is important overseas and sometimes in this country. We are much more restrictive about what charities may do than, say, the United States. My next point which involves improving and influencing international relations is related to that. I believe that that area is pretty well closed to charities at present.
My last point is rather odd. I was not aware of it until I studied the matter in greater detail. I understand that charities suffer serious constraints on their ability to deal with children in care.
I believe that the case has been made out that the law governing charities, their practice and accountability needs review. I hope that the Government will take on board the points made on both sides of the House this evening.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I welcome the opportunity of this interesting debate on charities and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) on introducing the subject. He spoke of a sphere in which he has practised efficiently for a number of years. He is a practitioner rather than a theorist in the administration of charities. That is apparent from the practical and common sense points that he put forward. The House is fortunate to have the benefit of his experience and expertise on this difficult but important matter.
It was a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friends the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent has a great deal of experience in the voluntary sector, which was reflected in what he said. He called for ways to deal with small charities, and it was a great regret to me that the Bill promoted by Sir Angus Maude, as he then was, to assist small charities unfortunately fell at the general election. I have not given up hope that we shall be able to do something about that shortly. Unfortunately, the waters have been somewhat muddied by a dispute in

the House of Lords between his Bill and that promoted by Lady Faithfull, which the Government believe goes too far. However, we hope to make progress.
I welcome the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge about fund-raising, and some of the clear abuses that appear to have come to light. He would do the House a service if he were to continue to take an interest in this subject and raise matters when appropriate. None of us can feel happy about the recent publicity on that issue.
It is important for me to make clear just how limited my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's powers are in respect of charities. It is open to the House to argue that they should be more substantial, although I was impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South who asks more for a coordinated effort by larger charities to ensure that they promote themselves and the image of charitable giving rather more impressively than has been the case, than for major legislative change.
While my right hon. and learned Friend has the responsibility for formulating charity law he has no powers to intervene in the administration of individual charities. Although he appoints the charity commissioners and presents their annual report to Parliament and is accountable to Parliament for the commission's general efficiency, the commissioners are answerable to the High Court, and not to my right hon. and learned Friend, for the way in which they exercise their responsibilities in respect of particular charities.
That procedure and constitutional position did not emerge accidentally. It was the conscious intention of Parliament—as can be seen from the Second Reading debate on the Charities Bill 1960 — that politicians should as far as possible be kept out of charities. It would plainly require a great deal of thought before any of us were prepared to go back on what many people believed, and still believe, to be an estimable sentiment.
Such a system has a great deal to commend it. Charities are independent voluntary bodies and as such it would be inappropriate for Government to intervene in their affairs beyond what might be said to be essential. The question of what might be essential has to be determined against the background of the situation as it exists at a given time. Some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge and, indeed, my other hon. Friends made suggest that the borders can move according to what is happening in the charity world at the time.
The charity commissioners are an extension of the courts, in effect, and they have wide powers that they can use if it is thought to be necessary. I was delighted to note the warm words that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South had for the work of the charity commissioners. He specially singled out the fairly recently appointed charity commissioner, Denis Peach, for praise. I believe Denis Peach has done a great deal to improve the work of the Charity Commission while he has been there. It is right to say that the commission continues to look at its responsibilities and is prepared to make changes where that is desirable.
I have some good news for the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) on the important point that he was making about racial harmony as a charitable object. I understand that the charity commissioners as a board decided last week—this news may not yet have reached the hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members—that the


promotion of good community relations, the prevention of discrimination on the grounds of race or sex and the promotion of equal opportunity is in the commission's view charitable despite earlier High Court decisions that have led to the view that the promotion of race relations is not in itself charitable. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that as a useful step forward.
Against that background we need to examine the proposals that my hon. Friend put before the House and that he has written out in the recently published pamphlet that I hope anyone interested in the future of charities will take the trouble to read. On the one hand, the significant financial benefit derived through charitable status through tax and other fiscal reliefs means that the public have a right to expect that charities should be properly and efficiently administered in a way that best promotes the achievement of their objects. I was glad to see that that underlay all my hon. Friend had to say and, indeed, was supported in other speeches. On the other hand, we must not forget that trustees have very grave responsibilities in law for the adminisration of their charities. We should also not forget the heterogeneity of the charitable world. Charities vary enormously and their methods of administration will rightly vary. What is appropriate for the large collecting charity may be inappropiate for the small endowed charity.
My hon. Friend's proposals have only recently been forwarded to the Home Office. It would, therefore, be premature for me to try to offer the considered view of the Government on all these proposals. However, I should like to make a few brief comments about my initial reactions to what my hon. Friend wrote and to what he said in the debate. As I indicated earlier, the fact that my three hon. Friends have come into the House with their experience of the voluntary sector and the fact that they are obviously so concerned to take an interest in this is to my mind an important and welcome development. I look forward to engaging in a constructive dialogue with them about what should best be done in the charitable field over the next few years. The debate marks not the end of that process but only the beginning of it. There are plenty of points that we will need to pursue on other occasions. I want to respond as positively as I can to some of the points that my hon. Friend raised.
My hon. Friend's first proposal was for the compulsory filing of annual accounts. As he accepts, there is already a strict requirement in section 8 of the 1960 Act, which states that:
Statements of account giving the prescribed information about the affairs of a charity shall be transmitted to the Commissioners by the charity trustees on request; and, in the case of a charity having a permanent endowment, such a statement relating to the permanent endowment shall be transmitted yearly without any request, unless the charity is excepted by order or regulations.
The section also states:
Any statement of account transmitted to the Commissioners in pursuance of subsection (1) above shall be kept by them for such period as they think fit; and during that period it shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable times.
That is a rigorous requirement upon endowed charities to submit annual accounts unless they are excepted.
It goes further than that because any other registered charity may be required to file annual accounts on request. Those accounts, too, are available for public inspection. The chief charity commissioner recently told the Select

Committee of another place on the Parochial Charities (Neighbourhood Trusts) Bill and the Small Charities Bill that 6,000 to 8,000 accounts are examined each year. That is a tall order. He acknowledged, as he was bound to, the failure of many endowed charities to submit accounts, but he pointed to the considerable additional resources that would be needed to enforce the requirement.
We must recognise, in this area as in many others, the existence of priorities. Powers exist to require charities to submit accounts, and if unease arises in respect of a charity, I have no doubt that the commissioners would exercise those powers. It is open to anyone who is concerned about a charity or a group of charities to put the commissioners on notice, and invite them to exercise their powers; and, obviously, the commissioners must set forth a good reason why they are not prepared to do so. Whether it would be right to accord close scrutiny to each of the many thousands of charities whose accounts are already audited and whose administration is clearly beyond question, although they are not subject to the requirement to submit annual accounts, is debatable. It has been debated tonight, but I doubt whether we have arrived at the conclusion that the law is inadequate, although I hope that my hon. Friend will come back to me at a convenient time so that we can continue the dialogue. I am not slamming the door in his face on this or on any other proposal.
I was glad that several hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge, asked about fund-raising. The more that the public's attention is focused on the need to use their judgment in dealing with appeals for charities, as with any organisation to which they give money, the better. It is a matter for genuine public concern if money donated in good faith does not find its way to the charity. Charitable fund-raising requires considerable professional skill. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge made clear how charitable fundraising has had to become more professional and adapt to the times. No one objects to that, and there is room for professionals—people doing the job for money—in this area as in any other. I cannot understand otherwise how the charity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South is concerned was assessed as having a turnover of £25 million a year. The idea that that can be done without a professional approach does not bear a second's examination.
However, there comes a point where professional fundraising can tip over into a pocket-lining exercise by some individuals or companies for which the benefiting charity seems to be only a front; and, moreover, where the benefiting charity often does not know that it is involved in the matter. That is not acceptable to the Government. The principle of charitable giving is too important in our community to be besmirched by the activities of a few reckless or dishonest people.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in a recent speech to the Charities Aid Foundation:
If it emerges that there are abuses that the existing law cannot deal with and for which it is practicable to provide remedies, we shall not hesitate to act.
That is the Government' position. My right hon. and learned Friend put down a clear marker. We should keep a close eye on the situation as it develops. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South was right to say that it can be argued on the basis of investigations that we know have taken place and proceedings that have been mounted—it is not for me to comment on their merits or otherwise,


given that those matters are sub judice—that there are considerable powers under the present law for alleged malefactors to be brought to book, so it yet remains to be demonstrated that the present law is not adequate to deal with those abuses. However there is no doubt that the question of abuse is much more on the tip of people's tongues today than at any time in the past. We cannot ignore that fact, and do not intend to do so.

Mr. Rowe: If the existing law is adequate to deal with those abuses, whose responsibility is it? Are we saying that it is for the police in the ordinary course of events to pursue the matter on the basis of fraud, or is it the responsibility of the trustees of the charities, given that we have just heard that frequently trustees are not always good at spotting a rogue, or is it the responsibility of my hon. Friend's Department?

Mr. Mellor: It depends on the circumstances. If the charity is involved, the trustees have the responsibility. If the name of the charity is being used, I should have thought that it then becomes primarily a matter for the police. It would become a matter for the police if there was an alleged abuse of almost any sort. If a charity is in any sense alleged to be involved, wide powers are available to the Charity Commission so that it can satisfy itself that all proper steps are being taken. To clarify what I am saying to the House and what my right hon. and learned Friend said in the important speech that he made the other day, we are keeping an open mind on whether more needs to be done. We are putting down a marker that we share the considerable public concern about that aspect and welcome, as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge did, the fact that some responsible journalists have done valuable work in unearthing facts that have given us all cause for concern.
Because of the enormous diversity of charitable organisations, the solution in the short term may lie, as was suggested, in education of donors and recipients. Openness on the details of fund-raising and administrative costs is an important reform, and could and should be done on a voluntary basis. I very much welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South said on that. I should have thought that it was axiomatic that one of the ways to ensure than an appeal had the maximum effect on the public was to be able to prove beyond a peradventure where that money was going. I should have thought that all the major charities would want to do as much of that as possible.
In the same spirit of making charities more accessible to the public who support them directly or indirectly, it seems to me an excellent idea that charities supported by the generosity of the public should, wherever possible,

open up their annual general meetings to the public. I venture to suggest that their annual reports ate also an important vehicle for informing the public of their activities. Most collecting charities are only too anxious for the public to be aware of their activities. I hope that we can build on that in some of the ways suggested. However, I should need to be convinced as too whether the opening up of annual general meetings would need to be a matter for legislation.
I note the most interesting proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South about the Government's relationship to those charities over which they have some influence by making funds available. I shall certainly look closely at that suggestion.
The final recommendation made by my hon. Friend is for a charity council. Again, I think we would need to examine detailed proposals to see what is intended, but I cannot help wondering whether what is being proposed is a Charity Commission with no executive power and without its legal status. I think we might first need to consider whether existing structures, powers and resources are being used to best advantage before trying to create new ones.
Hon. Members will be aware that another set of proposals for the reform of charity law and administration is on the table. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations published its consultation paper
Charity Law—a Case for Change
in June and I understand that a final document is expected shortly. We shall want to consider the proposals alongside those raised by my hon. Friend.
We are fortunate in this country in having a broad and flourishing voluntary sector which, with its charitable and other income and, where appropriate, central or local government grants, often undertakes in a partnership with statutory authorities an immense and valuable range of activities of benefit to the community. While we wish to avoid unnecessary Government intervention in what are essentially private organisations, when public money is given to voluntary bodies, whether or not they are charities, the conditions of the grants must be such as to secure an appropriate level of accountability. I was pleased that my hon. Friend raised that matter in such a forthright way. Where the public contribute to a charity, the public interest demands that its charitable funds are properly administered and devoted to the purposes for which they are donated. Whether the objectives can be achieved within the existing statutory frameworks by self regulation, voluntary agreement and good practice, we shall certainly be examining very carefully, as I have made clear throughout the debate.
As part of this process, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these important points.

Housing Benefit

Ms Clare Short: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the very serious matter of the reduction in income which will be imposed on some of the poorest families in the land as a result of the cuts in housing benefit announced by the Chancellor in his autumn statement. The changes that he announced will cut the income of one in eight of all households in the United Kingdom, so we are discussing a large group of persons and a serious cut.
It is now absolutely clear that a major objective of Government policy is to increase inequality in Britain. They boast openly that they wish to cut the taxes of the better-off to increase incentives and efficiency. We have seen little increased efficiency as our economy is battered and goes into ever-increasing decline. One of the Government's objectives, which they do not spell out openly but which is clear from their actions, is to make the poor poorer. A great increase has taken place in the past few years in unnecessary unemployment, and millions of people have been thrown into poverty. Unemployment has been created deliberately by the Government's economic policies. Cuts have been made in all the benefits relied on by the poor. The housing benefit scheme has suffered two cuts; those introduced by the original scheme a year ago and the recent proposals.
The Chancellor of the Excehquer said that he sought to save £230 million by cutting housing benefit, but £5·5 billion per annum is given away in the form of mortgage tax relief. Such tax relief was increased substantially in the spring Budget. There can be no argument that the Government do not have funds, that the cuts are necessary and that the money could not be found by other means.
When the Government introduced the housing benefit scheme, many poor families lost out. About 400,000 persons, who previously received help with their rent and rates, lost out completely and received no further Government help. More than 2 million persons now receive less than they did prior to the introduction of the scheme. As a result of the Chancellor's autumn statement, more poor families will lose out. The Government's own estimate is that a further 540,000 householders will cease to receive any help at all—270,000 will be pensioners and 270,000 low-paid workers.
An even larger number—2,170,000 householders—will lose out by becoming poorer as they are given a smaller benefit. The figure is much worse, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies. It says that 4·5 million households will lose out. The Government can give the 2 million figure only because 2 million families entitled to claim do not do so.
The Government will make certain groups poorer by the changes. First, they will affect the low earner about whom the Government claim to be so concerned. The changes will make the poverty trap even worse. We have heard many sentiments of concern from Conservative Members about the working poor and the disincentive to work, yet this scheme will undoubtedly make that problem worse.
Secondly, the changes will affect the young unemployed—a group that has suffered massively under this Government. The 18 to 20-year-olds will lose £3·10 a week from their benefit. The Government may argue that when they live at home with their parents, their parents

will receive housing benefit to make up for that. But 18-year olds are past the age of majority and families do not always claim, so the increased dependence will be deeply resented. The Government may not know it, but Opposition Members are well aware of the family tension caused by large numbers of youngsters being unemployed, at home and on low incomes. There is no doubt that the change will make that problem more serious.
The youngsters who are lucky enough to be in work will also suffer. Their number is few, and it is still diminishing. The Government should note that 18 to 20-year-olds, on whom they have picked this time, face growing unemployment. No figures suggest any improvement.
The 16 and 17-year-olds will, for the first time, be expected to contribute to the rent of the household when they live at home. The 18 to 20-year olds will be expected to contribute at the full adult rate even though they receive wages that are only 60 per cent. of the average.
The final group that will suffer are the pensioners. If they have a private pension or private income that puts them just above the supplementary level, and they will suffer from the changes.
The Government have tried to mislead all of us by saying that the better off will pay for the changes. The list that I have cited are in no sense the better off as that phrase is understood by people in Britain. They are poor, and it is playing with words to describe them as the better off when billions of pounds are given away in mortgage tax relief.
I wish to cite some examples of the amounts of money about which we are talking. The Government like to deal in averages, and suggest that families will lose only marginal or small amounts. That is not the case, because some families will lose considerable amounts. Examples provided by SHAC illustrate the problems well. A family with two children, one at school and the other a 17-year old living at home, with a total income of £135 a week, paying £25 rent and £8 a week rates, will lose £8 a week. A low-paid family struggling to maintain themselves will lose as much as £8 a week.
A single parent with one child at school and a total income of £112 a week, paying £15 a week rent and £4·50 a week rates, will lose £4·10 a week. A pensioner couple with a 50 year old daughter living with them, with an income from pensions and savings of £4,500 a year—£105 a week—paying rent of £22·50 and rates of £12 a week, will lose £5·40. A single pensioner with a retirement and occupational pension totalling £4,000 a year —£76·92 a week—paying £18 a week rent and £5 rates, will lose £4·52 a week. I stress that those are not extreme examples but the amounts of money that the Government are planning to take from some of the poorest groups in our society.
I referred previously to the poverty trap, about which th Government claim to be concerned. I should like to make clear how serious this problem will be for low earning families. Ultimately, for every extra pound earned they will lose 79p through the withdrawal by Government of tax, national insurance and housing benefit alone. When such families claim family income supplement and other means-tested entitlements, such as free school meals, they stand to lose more than a pound in lost benefit for every extra pound they have earned. That is a total disincentive to work, if they are at all rational.
These grave cuts come on top of the cuts that were already imposed by the Government when the scheme was


originally introduced. The family with two children with one child at school and the other a 17-year-old, which lost £2·11 a week when the scheme was introduced, loses £10 a week because of these sets of changes. That is an enormously large sum of money to be taken from a family struggling to maintain itself in these difficult days.
I suggest that the proposed changes are disgraceful and unjustifiable. They make a small and unnecessary saving. The cuts in Government expenditure are not necessary and come on top of the mean-minded scheme that was introduced with great chaos throughout the land because the Government were not willing to be sufficiently generous in administrative resources and the amounts given out to reduce the complexity of the scheme. I suggest to the Minister that it is likely that the new set of changes will throw the whole system into further bureaucratic disorder and bring great suffering to many people, especially the old who become extremely depressed by facing rent arrears and who have tried proudly throughout their lives to pay their rent on time. The changes suggest that the Government have no concern for those who live in rented accommodation. The Government seek to suggest to the nation that the virtuous buy their houses and the rest can go to the wall. Those of us who live in the real world know that large parts of our population must live in rented accommodation — the young, the unemployed, single parents and pensioners. Those groups can never buy their houses. The Government are deliberately reducing the standard of living of those groups and pretending that they are an unworthy group who should be protected. This is a disgraceful set of proposals of which the Government should be deeply ashamed.

Mr. Allen McKay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) for initiating this debate and for putting her finger on many of the points that arise on this iniquitous measure.
When I was young, it was drilled into me that if a person had a roof over his head he had a base from which to start. That was the main point irrespective of any problems that occurred. Successive Governments have recognised that by providing housing benefit, but this Government have decided deliberately and with forethought to cut that benefit, and therefore they have effectively started to deprive people of the roof over their heads.
That action has been taken by the Government on top of many other cuts in benefits, deprivations, increases in fuel costs, decreases in allowances and the severe problem of unemployment. People affected by those measures are often those who apply for housing benefit.
My local authority, of which I was once a member, is benevolent in its attitude to the provision of welfare benefits and in its approach to the problems caused by the Government. I therefore asked the people in that authority for their views, as they have to deal with the problems at the grass roots. They expressed great concern about a number of problems that have arisen and will continue to arise. They were especially concerned about the number of tenants potentially entitled to housing benefit supplement who did not claim it because of the complexity of the scheme and the lack of publicity about it.
The scheme was supposed to eliminate the problems of a dual benefit system in which the tenant had to choose which benefit to claim. To qualify for housing benefit supplement, however, the tenant still has to make a claim to the DHSS for supplementary benefit, together with a request for assessment of the excess income figure, as well as making a claim to the housing department for rent and rate rebate, so the need to go to two different offices has not been eliminated.
My local authority carried out a small survey of randomly selected pensioners, 60 per cent. of whom appeared to be potential housing benefit supplement recipients. This suggests that of the 8,750 pensioner standard rebate cases in the Barnsley metropolitan borough, 5,250 pensioner households may be entitled to housing benefit supplement but are not claiming it. The authority's research section is continuing its investigation of the problems.
The difficulties in administering the scheme arose from the sheer lack of publicity when it was introduced. This caused great confusion among tenants, and there is still a serious lack of explanatory leaflets on the subject. In addition to the difficulty of identifying potential claimants, the scheme itself is cumbersome and difficult to administer, the main problem being the excessive paperwork required and the constant revision of excess income figures, including backdated changes.
The calculation of the transitional safeguard further complicates an already complex calculation. It has proved extremely difficult to explain to tenants as well as to administer. The introduction of the modified non-dependant deduction after full implementation of the scheme meant that the publicity was crude and less clearly explained than it should have been. Many tenants whose rebate includes non-dependant deductions are going into arrears by that amount because the housing benefit department receives only £1·35 direct from the DHSS.
The Government never took into account the problems and expense that would be caused for local authorities. Circular HB(83)3 states that
we said that further advice would be issued on how local authorities might identify claimants for standard housing benefit with potential entitlement to housing benefit supplement or supplementary benefit … and to give guidance on identifying entitlement in pensioner cases.
Paragraph 10 of the circular continues:
It is clear from the research data that the same formula would not be satisfactory for non-pensioner cases … This may enable a suitable alternative formula to be devised for these cases, and further guidance on this will be issued in due course.
Rather than run through the same exercise twice, local authorities decided to wait on that further advice. On 22 September 1983, HB(83)11 was issued. The attached report suggested three primary reasons for the earlier formula's lack of success in non-pensioner cases. It also said that no suitable formula was yet available and that
the Department does not consider that any is sufficiently accurate to recommend to authorities as a means of identifying entitled non-pensioners.
The Government have introduced a scheme which is difficult to administer and they have failed to introduce guidance for local authorities. How many local authorities have completed the suggested review? How many have not yet started a review? When does the Minister expect all authorities to complete the review? What does he estimate the number of potential claimants involved to be? What, on average, is the estimated loss to the potential claimant? Does he intend to issue instructions through


DHSS offices to back-date claims for supplementary benefit and housing benefit supplement in view of the way in which the Government have cheated people out of money which is rightfully theirs because they have introduced complex legislation and failed to supply the necessary guidance?
I suspect that no local authority has completed the suggested review, as a formula on which to complete it in non-pensioner cases has not yet been devised. Meanwhile, thousands of people are losing either supplementary benefit or housing benefit supplement. We are discussing not small amounts of money but the loss of single payments for special needs and large sums of weekly benefit.
I should like to mention two cases which were given to me by Mr. Douglas Carr, who is a welfare rights officer for Barnsley metropolitan district. I am greatly indebted to him for information on housing benefit and on many other welfare problems. Mrs. J is a 76 year old pensioner who approached Mr. Can because of difficulty in paying fuel bills. The investigation revealed that she had been deprived of £5·91 a week in benefits since April. It is no wonder she could not keep warm when she had already lost £153·66. Mrs. M, a single unemployed person, went to see Mr. Can about money owed to her by her ex-employer. Mr. Can decided to check to see whether any extra benefits would be available to her. It was found that she had missed claiming supplementary benefit at a rate of £2 a week since last April. That had not been discovered by the Department of Employment or the housing benefit office.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced recently that the Government intended to make savings of £230 million on the housing benefit scheme by changing the formula for calculating rebate entitlements next April. What Opposition Members highlighted during debates on what is now the Social Security and Housing Benefit Act 1982, is now fully revealed by local housing benefit staff. The 1982 Act shuffled money around. Pensioners below the needs allowance received better benefits, but that money was taken from pensioners whose pensions were slightly above the level at which they would qualify for the needs allowance. That attack on what the Government call the richer members of the poor continues, but this time nobody but the Government benefit.
I shall quote more examples from the authority's files. Under the existing rules, a man, who has a wife and a 17 year old son in full-time work, and who is a tenant in receipt of £60·30 a week invalidity benefit and £20 a week superannuation, with housing costs of £15 in rent and £5 of rates per week, receives total rebate of £7·29. Under the new rules it will be £2·18. Therefore, he will lose £5·11 a week. In the case of a man and wife, both pensioners, with an income of £54·50 state retirement pension, £10·84 a week NCB pension, and £5 a week interest on savings, their rebate at the moment is £7·89, but under the new rules it will be £7·16. That will be a loss of only 73p, but to them that is a vast sum.
Let us take the case of a single parent with one dependent child, one son of 19 on unemployment benefit, and a daughter aged 17 in full-time work. The income of the tenant comes from a part-time job earning £35 gross, with child benefit of £6·50, one-parent benefit of £4·05,

and maintenance of £40 week. Under the existing rules the rent rebate is £8·26, but under the new rules it will be £2·48—a loss of £5·78.
Another example is that of a widow with a daughter aged 20 on sickness benefit, with a widow's pension of £34·05, industrial death benefit of £10·22, NCB pension of £7·50 and the interest on savings of £3·50. She gets £4·14. But under the new rules she will get nothing—a loss of £4·14 One can see how effectively the Government are depriving the lowest of our income groups of what should be their means to carry on with their housing.
The Guardian on 1 December said:
More than five million people—one in 10 in Britain—face higher rent and rates bills from next April following a Cabinet decision to save £230 million on housing benefits.
The numbers caught by the rises is more than three times the figures MPs were given to expect when Mr. Nigel Lawson, the Chancellor, announced the housing benefit cuts last month.
The numbers include an estimated 1·75 million pensioners who will, on average, lose 80p a week … some council tenants will lose just over £64 a month.
Those are the effects of the Government's legislation.
The Government issued a press release in August to try to put over their case and to overcome the problems, the difficulties and deficiencies of their policy. The press release said that once the initial difficult period was over the advantages of housing benefit would begin to be seen. We can now see what the Government call advantages. The advantages are all for the Government. How is it that the Government alone will benefit from their proposed cuts? What is wrong with their idea of shuffling into the housing benefit scheme other welfare schemes? They said then that that would bring together all the help under one roof, but this does not happen, because most claimants have to go to two offices.
The Government said that this scheme would get over the problems of claimants not knowing whether they were better off under one scheme or another. It does, if one can say that it is an advantage to be cheated out of the housing benefit like the 2 million people who will be cheated. They said that the scheme would make things more simple, particularly for local authority tenants on supplementary benefit and for elderly people who would no longer have to pay rent and rates themselves. That is true, except that the Government forgot that they were depriving the old people of the contact. As a result, isolation has increased and the person to whom they could report their housing problems has gone.
The Government also said that the scheme would help the local authorities to reduce rent arrears, but it has not, because rent arrears are increasing. How can it benefit local authorities when the Government are stopping this benefit for millions? They said that it would give benefit to over 1 million of the poorest pensioners, but the cases have not been identified because a formula has not yet been worked out for that. They claimed that it would also make new groups eligible for benefit and confers new rights not found in the old rebate scheme, such as the right to a review by local authority councillors. How many reviews have been done by local authority councillors, and how can one ask for a review of a case under a system which nobody understands?
The legislation was intended to be a unified housing benefit, but the word "unified" has casually and quietly been dropped. What was supposed to be a simplified scheme has caused nothing but upset and confusion. The DHSS staff have been reduced, decimated, demoralised


and overworked. Local authorities cannot spend money to provide a properly administered housing benefit scheme, because they face Government overspending penalties. The so-called Government saving is borne by the claimants—the poorest member of our society.
The Government admitted that 2 million people would be worse off under the scheme—and there could be millions more eventually. To add insult to injury, not only will those above the needs allowance suffer, but so will those below it. In reducing the above the needs allowance the Government have decided that unemployment and other benefits are the equivalent of working. All non-dependants above 17 years of age will now have to pay £7·09 a week towards housing costs, instead of the reduced £3·35.
What a mess. At the worst the Government stand accused of cheating and taking money from the poor, at the same time as giving £2·3 million in the 1983 Budget to people in the highest income brackets. At best, the situation is a result of sheer Government incompetence.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The importance that the Government attach to the debate is clear from the fact that, if I am not mistaken, the only people on the Conservative Benches are the Minister, his PPS and a Whip. No Conservative Members are present —except, as it were, out of duty—to show the concern which is apparently only superficial about the fact that under discussion is an attack on the living standards of many people.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) quoted from an article in The Guardian of 1 December — two weeks, more or less, after the announcement, not in a statement, but in a written answer, so that there was no opportunity to attack it, which is what it deserves—of the figures by the Secretary of State for Social Services, which we are discussing now and which will be implemented when regulations, if passed, are laid before the House.
The article appeared a day before the last day of the consultation period, during which objections to the proposals were to be lodged by the relevant bodies. Two weeks were allowed for objecting or making recommendations about a scheme which, as the two hon. Members who have spoken made clear, and as everyone knows, is one of enormous complexity, even in outline.
It was also clear by 1 December that there was concern and considerable doubt. The Minister had announced proposals that even his party—although not present for this debate — regarded as an embarrassment to the Government. No one thought that the idea of having benefit as it was conceived a couple of years ago, with all the flaws and defects that it clearly had, would lead to a tightening of the screw on the people whom the Government said that it was designed to help.
I attended a conference that was organised by Shelter at Nottingham a year and a half ago. Coincidentally, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was also there. We had a session on the new unified benefits system. The primary objection to the system was not its complexity, but the fact that it would reduce, on a daily or weekly basis, the ability of people to have in their hands and homes the money with which to order their budget. When one has little money, it helps to have something available to choose which bills to pay this week

and which to pay next week. It sometimes helps to postpone one bill until one has met more urgent debts and obligations.
One of the defects in the system is that by making a direct payment from a Government Department to a local authority—which is effectively acting as agent for the Government—we deprive people of the ability to make decisions about their spending and lives. It could be said that such a system removes the problem of how to manage budgets, but it does not. It is apparent that for millions of people the system has added to the problem of managing budgets. It has reduced the amount of money that they have to play with.
By the proposals, the Government are doing blatantly what they have been doing surreptitiously in previous years. By fiscal measures the Government are reducing the tax paid by the better off and penalising people who have no work or are unable to work. I refer to single parents, people who are ill, and pensioners who depend on the extra occupational pension or other income to which they are entitled because they have earned it. They will carry the burden of battening down the hatches, the hallmark of the Government's economic policy.
Let us examine the relative incomes of those who earn £80,000 a year. Under this Government they are thousands of pounds better off. The people who earn £60 a week, or £5,000 a year—well below the national average wage—should by any self-respecting society be protected against inefficient payment systems which give them no decent minimum wage. The House has debated that subject for 60 years and yet we have never been able to guarantee to people — who work because of self respect for a minimum wage — some proportion of the national average income. That also applies to pensioners.
The Government now say to such people, "You will give up out of what is left between £5 and £8 a week according to your family circumstances." Even only 73p a week is substantial for someone who has only £5 or £10 left to pay for all other expenses after paying for food.
That is why we are so angry about the proposals. The Government are saving £230 million. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said that mortgage interest relief is a £5·5 billion Government subsidy to people with private homes.
The so-called saving is a pittance compared with what the Government could save elsewhere. It is a pittance saved only because it transfers jobs. It transfers the work to local authority staff and imposes on other parts of the national bureaucracy.
The system is complicated and disadvantageous. There will be complications. Calculations will be done by officials perhaps inaccurately because the system is behind in taking changed circumstances into account, because of errors in the calculations, because the computer is inadequate or because of insufficient co-ordination between officials in the DHSS and the local housing revenue department. As a result, people will suddenly he presented on their doorstep with enormous, unjustified rent bills and demands for payment.
Old people in my constituency and no doubt in every constituency have received demands that they cannot begin to comprehend. All they know is that they are terrified because they think they owe money. They may or may not owe it. If they do not owe it, eventually things may be sorted out after weeks and months of effort. People may owe money because, for example, there has not been


a declaration of a change of circumstances; a youngster, an 18-year-old, may earn a little more, which does not come to the notice of officials for three months, and then suddenly, retrospectively, there is a change which means that, what was thought to be the net family income after the payment, is reduced by £5 a week, which over three months is a considerable sum, approaching £100, to be found from nowhere because there may be nowhere to find it from.
The problem then becomes a practical problem of how one can remove the mesh that is gradually entwining the worst paid, the worst suffering and the most confused people in our society who are at the mercy of a system about which the Government have had to send out 10 different pieces of paper in the past year as explanation, a system so wonderful, so streamlined — that is the Government's word—and so straightforward that local authorities and the DHSS still cannot work it. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has been to argue with the Minister and to say, "Please, give us a chance to get it sorted out; give us some more money for personnel and give us the administrative back-up that we need." We have heard nothing to suggest that the Minister has heeded any of their requests.
It is not as if now, in one single package, all the other systems have been incorporated. There are still applications for rent rebates and rate rebates. They still have to be made and processed. Officials must still deal with them. Where is this unified benefit system that the Government boast? It was introduced speedily, it has been changed regularly, and now it is about to be worsened fundamentally. I should like to know from the Minister two sets of information. What work was done by his Department —I know that he was not the responsible Minister at the time, but he is well briefed in these matters and he should have the answers—to ensure that local authorities and the DHSS did have the equipment, did have the personnel, did have ability and did have the funds to be able to deal with the system? Did the Minister's Department find out from them that they needed certain resources and then find that they were wrong in supplying the information, or did the Minister actually not give to those bodies the chance to equip themselves with the resources that they needed? Much more importantly—the second set of figures — what is the cost to the taxpayer in terms of the time as well as the effort, the wages as well as the tasks left undone elsewhere, the opportunity lost to the taxpayer of the time spent in trying to deal with all the queries, in trying to allay all the fears, in trying to put at rest the regular inquiries, the contested cases, the inquiries from lawyers as well as from individuals, the inquiries from local welfare rights organisations, the checking that people often need to ensure that they are not being deprived of the very little with which they are left once the system has worked its worst? What investigations, before the announcements, had the Department made? What had it done to ensure that the local authorities had sufficient personnel and sufficient additional income to pay for the personnel?
Does the Minister know what has been the total increase in the number of personnel in local authorities dealing with these inquiries? It was estimated that the DHSS would save 2,400 staff. How much in fact has it saved? And how many extra staff hours, net or gross, have been used by

local authorities? My authority has had a 92 per cent. increase in staff just to deal with the implementation of the benefits, and most authorities have had at least that proportionate burden placed on them.
We are not talking about just a few people. In a constituency such as mine — like in any inner city constituency—53 per cent. of public sector tenants, who represent 80 per cent. of my constituents, are on housing benefit. Of private sector tenants, another 5,000 to 6,000 are involved. That is about 40,000 people in one constituency. We are talking about half the people in the constituency—half the population in some parts of our cities—being affected by the Government's proposals. I urge the Minister to respond to these complaints, and say what the Government are doing to allay the concerns that have been expressed about the present system, before we try to amend it again.
A report will be debated in Southwark today, and I quote a few lines from it:
The implementation of the benefits scheme has brought many problems of a serious nature … they are widespread … complexity of the scheme … short timescale of its implementation … Evidence that the DHSS officers do not know about the scheme in detail … inadequacies in administration … They give sometimes incorrect advice to claimants … They are sometimes not performing efficient liaison with the Local Housing Office … Insufficient staff in the new Housing Benefits Department … Problems with benefit certificates being marked 'Private' when they should be marked 'local authority tenants' … The same happening in reverse … Some certificates being sent to the wrong borough or the wrong place … Incorrect calculations being made on a regular basis.
How are those problems being looked at by the Government? Where is there evidence that they are showing any concern about whether the system is working? Anybody who has spoken to the people who are trying to implement the system knows — and the Minister knows because they have come to see him and have told him about it in clear terms—that the scheme is not working. Not only are the so-called recipients of benefit suffering, but the administrators are suffering too.
About 10 per cent. of the amount that we are discussing is obtained from the rates, not from central Government funding, and there is a discretion in local authorities to allow certain amounts of benefit in certain cases, for example for the disabled. What guarantee can the Minister give tonight that that will not only not be reduced but will be increased? What guarantee is there that the necessary grant funding will be increased from 60 per cent., the capital funding that the Minister said would be guaranteed, to what it should be—namely, 100 per cent. —if the local authorities are agents, as they are, of central Government?
It is no good the Government saying that the taxpayer is being saved the cost when the cost is being put on the ratepayer. How will the proposals affect local government costs? The answer lies in the rate-capping measures about which we shall hear later today. Will the Bill, about which we shall hear later, exempt from rate-capping any moneys that are needed for housing benefit? We must have answers to these questions. The Government have simply said that the cuts that are required by the national economy will make the system less generous for those whom we already know are most in need.
For many years the Liberal party has held the clear view that the way to have a united system that does not allow the poverty trap to get greater is for the Government to


become brave and put taxation and benefits together. It will take a little time to get the taxation Departments of State and the benefit Departments of State to unite their two systems, but how much better it would be if we had a tax credit system, under which those above the median point paid into the Exchequer and those below it would be, to a greater or lesser extent, the recipients of credit.
At the moment there are about 44 different means-tested benefits, although people lose count of them. There are 44 different ways in which people have to apply, under different regulations, in different offices and on different forms, for the benefits to which they are entitled. That is no way to run a social security system. That is a social insecurity system. It is a system that misleads and confuses. The system used to be called national assistance, but it often does not assist at all. It is generally accepted as being misleading to all concerned.
There are backlogs in most authorities in dealing with housing benefit. In some authorities they amount to 20 per cent., and the average is about 10 per cent. In the housing districts in my constituency, there is a backlog of just under 10 per cent. There is no suggestion that the resources will ever be made available to allow those backlogs to be dealt with. The backlogs do not affect just the statisticians —the boffins in the Government's back rooms. They affect the entitlement to money of those at the bottom of the scale in terms of revenue, income and resources. They stop people getting what they deserve.
We thought originally that the regulations would be laid before the House before Christmas, but if the Government run into a bit of trouble there may be a delay. The Minister has a duty to reassure us that the delay will mean improvement. He has a duty to answer the questions and anxieties of the House. Even if Conservative Members are not here to voice the increasing upset that they have felt since they realised what a devastating blow to a decent welfare state the measures represent, the Minister has a duty to explain how he can justify implementing housing benefit proposals with the implications that have been spelt out in this debate. How can he justify implementing those proposals when the back-up and resources are lacking and —unless he has something new to tell us—are unlikely to be made available? The result will be that those coping with least ease today will be given the biggest burden tomorrow.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The Minister's problem in defending the Government is that he has been instructed to perform a dirty deed. The problem of Opposition Members is that there are no words in the English language adequate to express the pain and hurt that will be suffered by the victims in the inner cities as a result of the £230 million cut in housing benefit.
In Hackney, the poorest people in the poorest borough in the country will suffer the greatest hardship. For them, 1984 will be the Orwellian nightmare which some of them have been dreading. The Government's message to them is not one of seasonal greetings and good will for the new year. It is that in the mean, spiteful and competitive world which they call paradise, those who live in the inner cities are less equal than their richer fellow citizens outside the inner cities, and that those least able to defend themselves must expect to be, and will be, squeezed and squeezed again by the policies of the Government.
I spent this morning closeted with some of the senior financial advisers of Hackney borough council, studying the likely effects of the housing benefit cuts on local residents. It was a terrible morning. We discovered that in addition to the private tenants who will suffer — we cannot be certain how many there will be — 13,000 council tenants will be worse off as a result of the housing benefit cuts announced by the Minister recently. Of those 13,000, 1,430 are single parents with small children to look after; 5,590 are single people living alone; and 5,980 are married couples. On average, those 13,000 people will be £1·50 a week worse off; 3,000 will be between £1·50 and £3 worse off; hundreds will be £4 to £5 worse off, and many families will be £8 and more per week worse off.
It is worse than a catalogue of disaster, because those cuts must be seen in conjunction with the rate penalties which the Government have recently announced for Hackney borough council. On the most optimistic assumption, we find that in Hackney hundreds of farnilies —middle-aged people with non-dependent adults living with them—will have to add the £5 a week they will lose in housing benefit to the £5 per week rate increase. Next year they will be £10 to £11 worse off.
It is clear that the Government are doing more than simply causing hardship which will reduce some people to tears. They are pushing some people into a position where they will be unable to cope. When the oppression becomes so great that people wake shaking in the night and scream inwardly by day, the worst is bound to happen. When it does, let there be no doubt that the Government must accept responsibility.
It is ironic that the Government, who were first elected to abolish the rates, should be forcing local authorities to push them up. It is doubly ironic that a Government elected to abolish rates should now be reducing a benefit designed to ease the rate burden. It is cruel that so many more people in Hackney are being pushed into the poverty trap. It is doubly cruel that many more people who could have expected to receive benefit will not come into benefit as rents and rates rise and the economic position worsens.
In this inner city area, with all its acute problems, we see that the economy is once again being made to spiral downwards. That spiralling is caused by problems endemic to the inner city—low incomes, which are the direct result of Government policy.
Administratively we know that the introduction of the housing benefit scheme has been the kind of cock-up that one rarely meets in Government. I was a senior civil servant some years ago. 1 have never seen anything remotely approaching the kind of mess being introduced by some of the best paid people in the land. The Government have tried to penny pinch in their desperate attempts to shed over 2,000 jobs.
The Guardian does not support the Labour party—it supports the SDP six—but it contained an astonishing comment. When the scheme was first introduced, the person who wrote one of the editorials said:
The scale of the housing benefit scandal must leave even the most cynical chronicler of bungling bureaucracy breathless with disbelief. It is quite simply the worst example of administrative chaos to have befallen the welfare state — a half cocked scheme administered to the detriment of some of the mom vulnerable people around.
Would it not be in order for all Labour Members, with some of their Conservative counterparts, to get together and report the Secretary of State for Social Services to the


Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Commissioner for Local Administration, because the administrative incompetence defies belief?
There is a certain malevolence in the way in which this scheme has been introduced which one can almost admire. Who will get the blame for most of the hardship that is caused? It is being done in such a way that it will not be the Government who are blamed, but local councils. The issue was summed up for me in a letter which I received this morning from the director of finance in Hackney, who said:
It is also important to understand how people will perceive these changes. All they will take notice of will be the new label for their rent book which shows the new total amount payable. Very few people will bother or be able to attempt to break down the increase into its constituent elements. Therefore, it is Hackney council who will be blamed, not the Government. However well our campaigning develops, the perception of rent and rate bills will in the end damage our credibility.
In other words, the council gets the blame and the Government make the savings.
I think that we are entitled to ask, in the name of reason or humanity, why these cuts are being made. The only serious answer is that the whole thing depends on bogus economic theories which even this week are being shown by the Bank of England to be fraudulent. The real guru behind these housing benefit cuts is not the Secretary of State for Social Services, but Professor Milton Friedman, the man who has provided the theoretical base for the Government's economic policies. This week, in a Bank of England document, Professor Hendry of the London School of Economics showed that almost every assertion in Professor Friedman's new book "Monetary Trends in the United States and United Kingdom" is false and that there has been incredible manipulation of the official statistics.
One of the reasons why the House is debating these appalling measures is that the whole theory rests on a mistake. As Professor Hendry said, the relationship between the money supply and total money spending and inflation varies so widely and is so unpredictable that it is random, and yet it is the whole basis of the economic theories which bring us into the House this morning.
Why should the poor people of Hackney have to suffer housing cuts because an economics professor from another country has made a fool of the Prime Minister and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country, and because the Secretary of State for Social Services has neither the strength nor the nous to challenge those people? Why is it that the poor people of Hackney have to suffer these cuts in housing benefit? Professor Milton Friedman stands to economic theory rather in the same way as Professor Burt used to stand to theories of intelligence—a fraud and a cheat.
I make three final points to the Minister and ask for his comments. Surely it is time that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, gave us an apology for the giant fraud which has been perpetrated on our country these past six years of which these housing benefit cuts form a part? When the Minister does that, I hope that he can tell us that we are about to witness the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that he will be able to tell us also that the policies that have flowed from that enormous fraud will cease forthwith. Lastly, if he has any concept of fairness, humanity or justice, he will surely rise from his

seat in a few minutes' time and tell us that these housing benefit cuts, which are calculated and designed to damage the interest of the poorest people in the poorest cities of this country, will be withdrawn forthwith.

Mr. Chris Smith: The debate so far has centred on the cuts that were announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement and that have subsequently been explained in greater detail by his colleagues on the Government Front Bench. Those cuts must be seen against the background of the general chaos that has reigned since the housing benefits system was first introduced in part, a year ago and in full measure in April.
When the system was introduced, we were told that it would simplify matters. However, it has done precisely the opposite. Few people, especially those receiving housing benefit, understand how the system operates and what their rights are under it. A system that seeks to redress income deficiency should, from the outset, be understandable by those whom it is supposed to serve.
The complexity was intensified by several factors, the first of which was the completely inadequate period available to local authorities to prepare for its introduction. The second was the large amount of incorrect information passed to local authorities by the DHSS. My local authority, with which the Minister is familiar, conducted a random check of the first 1,000 passported cases that came from the DHSS, and found that more than 90 per cent. of the calculations were incorrect. The difficulties facing local authorities become very clear when one considers those problems, together with the inadequate time allowed and the complexity of the system.
Two further problems must be added to the catalogue. The first was the improper starting levels at which authorities were told to introduce the system. No doubt the Minister will tell us that the setting-up costs were met by the Government, but that statement will ignore the fact that authorities have many continuing costs in administering the housing benefit system. Those costs will count against their expenditure for penalty when the Secretary of State for the Environment decides the rate support grant settlements. Boroughs and districts have been understandably cautious—in my view, over-cautious—in staffing the relevant departments to administer the scheme.
The final nail in the coffin of implementation is that any responsible local authority, given the lack of staffing and time available in DHSS offices to provide advice to claimants, would have wished, not just to process claims, but to provide advice to claimants on which method of claiming would be most beneficial to them. However, that would require more time and staff, and would carry with it more penalties under the rate support grant settlement. The implementation of the scheme has been fraught with problems, and chaos has resulted.
Some districts and boroughs have fared better than others, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said, the problems in inner cities are far more acute than they are anywhere else. Ministers may say that many district authorities around the country are succeeding more or less in getting matters right, but we must look at where the major problems lie in the inner city areas, where there are far more claimants and where, certainly in my borough, the


numbers far exceeded any that were expected either by the local authority or the DHSS before the scheme was implemented.
In Islington we have major problems of backlog in the processing of claims, particularly affecting and upsetting pensioners who have a small occupational pension. They are severely affected because they desperately want to pay their rent every week. I am sure that all hon. Members will realise and appreciate the desire of such people to keep up with their payments. Now, many of them find that almost impossible because the housing benefit claims have not yet been processed. In some cases the wait has been two, three or four months. I know of cases in my constituency when, no matter how much pleading there was by me, local councillors or housing officials that the pensioners should not pay the full rent, they still went ahead and paid it, going without food and heat as a result. That is the measure of the problem that this chaotic system, with its inadequate and unfortunate implementation, has left us with. It should not be shrugged off as if it does not matter. I hope that the Minister will not do so.
That is the background against which we now have the Lawson package of cuts. It is because that is the background that the cuts, which are bad enough in themselves, will be so much worse. Let us consider some of the problems that that package has imposed on us. The first is that there is wholly inadequate time for consultation. Letters went out to the various local authority associations on 22 November inviting their comments, as the Secretary of State is duty bound to do under the consultation duties laid upon him by the House. The final date specified for the receipt of comments was 12 December. There was a rider that, so that the social security advisory committee could consider the comments, it was advisable that they were received by 2 December if possible. The time scale from 22 November to 2 December in the first instance and to 12 December in the final instance is not, in anyone's reckoning, a sufficient time for proper consideration and consultation, especially bearing in mind the fact that some of the effects of the changes proposed in housing benefit are highly technical and complex, and need careful consideration to assess exactly what their impact will be.
Let us examine the effect of the proposals on the tapers. The subject is, I fear, somewhat technical, but crucially important to many persons. I shall examine the effect of the tapers on rent and rates. The Government have assumed, in adjusting the tapers, that the vast majority of persons in the country pay far more in rent than in rates. That is a correct assumption for many areas of the country, but not, I fear, for my constituency. In many parts of my constituency the amount that tenants pay in rates almost equals or equals their rent. The adjustment which the Government are proposing to carry out to the tapers acts powerfully to their disadvantage. The present tapers are based on a 3:1 ratio of rent to rates. The Government are proposing that there should be an effective ratio of 3·4:1 for those who are paying substantially more than the norm in rates as compared with rent. The move of 3:1 to 3·4:1 is a move in the wrong direction. The effect of the changes in ratio will be that rent rebates and allowances will be withdrawn more quickly than rate rebates, even though the amounts payable for rent and rates may be similar. Many of my constituents will suffer as a result.
A more serious feature of the Government's proposed changes to the tapers is the cumulative effect upon those

who have already been affected adversely by the introduction of housing benefits. Initial research carried out in my constituency shows that 23 per cent. of all housing benefit claimants will lose some benefit because of the proposed taper changes. A sample of 200 cases shows losses of up to £4 a week with 4·7 per cent of the sample losing their entire benefit. That fact occurs simply as a result of the taper changes, leaving aside any other changes proposed by the Government. The figures to which I have just referred reflect only the effect of the taper changes proposed for April 1984. Their effect is more severe if calculated cumulatively with the changes already made to the tapers under the initial introduction of housing benefit. The loss of benefit will be more noticeable in April 1984 because the timing of the new tapers will coincide with the final withdrawal of the transitional supplement which was introduced to try to tie in the initial introduction of housing benefit. Therefore, a triple blow has affected several of my constituents. They suffered originally from the introduction of tapers to the initial scheme, they will lose their transitional supplement in April 1984 and the tapers are rejigged to their disadvantage further in April 1984. The effect for some will be severe.
Other matters deal with the proposed changes, the most important of which relates to the tightening effect of the poverty trap on persons paying tax but in the low income brackets.
The net effect of some of the Government's changes will be that for some families, where one member is out at work and not earning a high income, that member will be better off not working. For a Government who are supposed to believe in financial incentives, that is a remarkable achievement. It is undoubtedly true that the changes that the Government are introducing will mean that for some people there will be a positive incentive to give up jobs. That will apply to low-income families and also to some hostel dwellers who are single and often earn only low incomes.
There are other changes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) may discuss more fully. For example, there is the increase in non-dependant deductions. Where a member of a family is a non-dependant and is earning, the deductions that will be assumed will be much greater. The degree of family strength that may be involved should not be underestimated.
The raising of minimum levels of benefit to £1 for rent and 50p for rates is, perhaps, in the Government's eyes only a marginal change, but for some it will mean that after April 1984 they will be deprived of cash.
There is the exclusion of some 50 per cent. of local authority areas for the current enhanced rent status. I do not know why the Government have decided to take that particular step. There is no sign that rents in those areas are going down or that inflation has necessarily gone racing forwards with rents lagging behind. I do not know why an area which in February 1984 can be regarded as a high rent area for rents for the private sector, should suddenly in May 1984 cease to be a high ranked area. It would be extremely useful if the Government could explain that.
The changes in the tapers and the cumulative effect of those changes, the tightening of the poverty trap on low— income families, the changes in non-dependant deductions, the raising of minimum levels of benefits, and


the abandonment of some 50 per cent. of enhanced rent areas are yet more pain and suffering being heaped on people. On top of that there is the final twist of the screw from the Government—all that must be implemented by April 1984.
I spoke earlier about the way in which the scheme was introduced in the first place, the difficulties that have been attendant upon its implementation and the chaos that still exists, especially in inner city areas, in its administration. If, on top of the financial disadvantage that the Government's proposals heap on some members of our communites, they heap a further dose of chaos and disaster in the changes that local authorities will have to introduce without any immediate influx of staffing, and with the same rate penalties on additional expenditure that existed before the Government decided to change the rules, the result will be further chaos and delays and further pain and suffering for large numbers of my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members.
The effect of those changes will be severe, especially on pensioners with a small occupational pension and low income families where at least one member is employed. Other people will be badly affected as well. One can assume only that the Government in bringing in those changes wanted to bring in a measure that was fundamentally regressive, detrimental to many people and which would be confusing to those who were already confused by a complex and mystical system. One can believe that the Government wanted to be heartless in singling out this area of public expenditure as part of the Chancellor's autumn statement of cuts.
If any of us who have any heart for the least fortunate in our society had been given the task of selecting an area of public expenditure from which £230 million could be excised relatively painlessly from the public budgets, the housing benefit budget would have been the last place at which we would have looked. I hope that the Minister, who has had an unpleasant task imposed upon him by the Chancellor, will have the decency to admit that the changes will be difficult to administer and painful in their consequences.

Mr. Max Madden: More than a million low income families and more than a million pensioners will be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) for initiating this debate and to my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) for bringing to the House and the Minister authentic accounts of the chaos, complexity, confusion and outrage throughout the country about the problems arising from the housing benefit scheme.
During the past year, the London Housing Aid Centre —SHAC—and its director Nick Raynsford have been issuing regular reports on the progress of the housing benefit scheme. One report entitled "Housing Benefit: Lessons from the Disaster" dated July 1983 states:
The one overriding and inescapable conclusion to be drawn three and a half months after the start date for the new Housing Benefit scheme is that its implementation has been disastrously bungled. There is stark and widespread evidence of confused claimants, large numbers of whom are still not receiving their

correct benefit; of harassed local authority officials desperately trying to get to grips with the requirements of the scheme and with the huge backlog of unprocessed applications; and of perplexed housing association staff wondering what to do about their escalating levels of rent arrears, caused because their tenants have not received enough or, in some instances, any money with which to pay the rent.
This morning we meet only about a year after the first anniversary of the housing benefit scheme. I doubt whether any local authorities held parties to celebrate the first anniversary of the scheme, for the reasons described by my hon. Friends. From the comments published by SHAC in July, I doubt whether there has been any improvement in the operation of the scheme between then and now.
In the past year the DHSS has issued 12 circulars and numerous amendments to the scheme. In addition to the work necessary to cope with the November benefit uprating, the Government now want a further £230 million cut in the scheme to come into effect next April. Regulations were to be tabled before Christmas, but it is clear that they will not be available until January at the earliest. Local authorities have had desperately little time to implement the changes demanded by the Government and there will be even less time for them to implement the cuts for which the Government are now pressing.
The latest cuts sought by the Government could be called without exaggeration "the great housing benefit robbery" which will take money out of the pockets of 2·5 million households in this country. One in eight households in Britain will suffer financial loss as a result. The scheme has been an unmitigated disaster and if the Government have their way more than 2 million pensioners and low income families will now face further substantial losses. Some pensioners will lose up to £5 per week and some low income families up to £10 per week. The cuts will not fall on the relatively well off, as the Government claim, but on the poor—individuals and families whose incomes are well below average earnings.
Age Concern, like so many other voluntary organisations, is extremely concerned about the operation of the housing benefit scheme and has recently made it clear which pensioners will be hardest hit by the cuts that the Government seek. Leighton Andrews of Age Concern has recently wrote to all Members of Parliament saying:
The kind of pensioners affected are those who have an occupational pension, an additional or graduated or incremented state pension, some part-time earnings or investment income.
They are the very people who have tried to take advantage of the Government's incentives to work and provide for themselves in retirement. In particular, we should point out that some pensioners will be paid an enhanced pension through the State earnings-related scheme, and will be penalised by the State for this through the housing benefit scheme.
It is curious that at the same time the Government is trying to assist occupational pensioners it should produce a proposal such as this which The Economist has rightly called 'one of the most effective disincentives … ever devised'. (The Economist, December 3rd 1983). It is a disincentive to obtain any additional pension, a disincentive to take any part-time work in retirement, and a disincentive to save.
Not only have the cuts been condemned by The Economist and The Guardian. Even the Daily Telegraph has condemned them. Voluntary agencies such as SHAC and Age Concern, the Low Pay Unit and many other bodies have rightly expressed their dismay at the past operation of the scheme and are extremely fearful about the effects and social consequences that the proposed cuts will have on pensioners and the working poor.
We have heard today of the effects that the cuts will have in seriously intensifying the poverty trap. We have heard of marginal rates of tax of 80 per cent. For those who are also in receipt of family income supplement it rises to 109 per cent. The latest cuts sought by the Government will fall most heavily on the same people who suffered financially from the changes flowing from the introduction of the housing benefit scheme.
We have already heard of the changes that the Government want to make for those who live in high-rent areas. One half of the authorities which are authorised to operate an enhanced benefit scheme because of the high level of rents in their areas will lose that authorisation. I am surprised that more Conservative Members are not present, as they represent many of those areas. About 26 out of 46 local authorities will lose authorisation—17 will have no authorisation at all, and 9 will lose one of the authorisations which they had. A list of those authorities reads like a roll-call of Tory constituencies. From Bexley to Hove, they are the areas where pensioners and the working poor who have the misfortune to live in high-rent areas will be hit extremely hard.
Camden council's publicity office recently issued a press release which says that people in Camden will lose more money than almost anyone else—
if, as expected, the Government's proposed changes to the existing Housing Benefits scheme takes place in April 1984.
It gives many examples—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood—of the effects that that could have on some families. I shall give the example of just one. For a family with two children, one at school and the other aged 17 who lives at home, with a gross income —including the man's earnings and child benefit—of £135 a week, Camden's housing department estimates that, with rent of £25 a week and rates of £11 a week, a private tenant will lose £9·51 a week and a council tenant will lose £12·22 a week as a result of the Government's proposed cuts.
The House has also heard about the impact of the housing benefit scheme and of the Government's proposals with regard to housing associations. Such associations have already witnessed serious increases in rent arrears and forecast that arrears will worsen if the cuts go through. We have also heard of the impact of the changes on local authorities. They are deeply anxious about the impact of another major upheaval and especially about the serious financial losses that people in their areas will suffer.
The hon. Member of Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked the Minister whether he could give some idea of what the Government intend to do to cushion the cost to local authorities of the changes that they have already had to overcome and which are quite separate from the difficulties which they will face if the regulations are approved and implemented. I gather that, initially, the Government proposed that the setting-up costs would be about £8·5 million with an additional £16·7 million for operating costs in 1983–84. Those figures were found to be wholly unrealistic and the latest figures for 1983–84 show a total of £25 million for operating and administrative costs. However, the latest estimates on the basis of experience, especially in London, is that administrative costs could well be nearer £50 million—twice what the Government originally set aside for the operation of the scheme.
The Minister owes it to those hon. Members who have seen fit to be here to explain clearly what the Government's intentions for local authorities and the costs that they face are.
We have heard about the various detailed changes that the Government are proposing to make. I shall not dwell in detail on these changes. Suffice it to say that clearly the major consequences flow from the changes that are proposed to the tapers. It is estimated that about 600,000 households will lose benefit as a result of changes to the tapers, and losses will also be felt by 2·25 million households.
There are also significant effects from the deductions of benefit made where there are non-dependants in the household such as children who have left school, elderly relatives, or lodgers, where the deductions are being increased. It is estimated that about 700,000 households will lose as a result of these deductions. Minimum payments are being increased so that any entitlement below these levels will no longer be paid, and it is estimated that the changes in the minimum payments will contribute to increased losses among the 2·25 million who are losing as a result of the changes to the tapers.
Finally, changes are being proposed to the thresholds at which authorisation for the enhanced high rent area scheme is given. These are being increased, and will result in increased deductions of £16·09 to £17·43 for council tenants, and from £17·65 to £19·95 for private tenants. It is estimated that about 40,000 will suffer as a result of changes to the thresholds.
There are these four major changes. It is bad enough when pensioners or the working poor are affected by one or possibly two changes, but where they are affected by three or four the effects are serious. I cite the example of one family that is affected by all four changes. The family has three children, one aged 18 living at home, with a total income of £160 a week, living in an area with high rent authorisation, paying £36 a week rent and £12 a week in rates. It is estimated that that family will lose £13·75 a week.
While the Government are robbing the poor of help with their housing costs, they are helping the relatively well off with substantial mortgage tax subsidies. The Government have stripped the housing benefit scheme of £230 million, but, as the Low Pay Unit has reminded us, this saving needs to be seen in terms of the £5·5 billion worth of revenue that the Treasury estimates that it has forgone as a result of overall tax relief to owner-occupiers. Instead of cutting the housing benefit and hitting pensioners and the working poor, the Government could and should have the money that they want by following the recommendations of the all-party Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, that mortgage interest allowance should be restricted to the standard rate of tax. That would have found the money for which they were looking and would have found it from the pockets of the relatively well off, rather than from the extremely arid relatively poor, who are facing the brunt of the Government's proposals.
The cuts in housing benefit will clobber the poor again and cause local authorities more administrative headaches. The Government should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch demanded, announce through the Minister that., in view of the social consequences of their proposals, and because of the enormous administrative problems that will be involved


for local authorities, they will cancel the cut announced at the end of November. The Government should announce tonight that they will ask the SSAC to review the operation of housing benefits before any more changes are made without proper consultation about their impact.
We heard that the SSAC was given just a few days to consider the cuts proposed by the Government. For a Government who so often say that they wish to consult, listen and to heed the views of the people, it is remarkable that they have denied their advisory body a reasonable opportunity to offer objective views on such swingeing proposals. We ask ourselves "Could it be that the Government did not want any views or consultations on these proposals, because they were determined, hell-bent, to get the cuts through?" Despite the views of independent voluntary agencies, Members of Parliament and the House of Commons, the Government wanted their £230 million from the working poor and the pensioners.
It is my view, and the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends, the SSAC should be asked by the Government to simplify housing benefits in ways that will not penalise claimants. We believe that further amending regulations should be halted. We certainly believe that no recovery of overpayments, resulting from official errors, should be made.
From all the criticisms that we have heard in this debate, it is clear that there should be an independent inquiry into the implementation of the scheme, because it has been a catastrophic disaster. We have seen the Minister's parliamentary private secretary losing a little weight scurrying backwards and forwards to civil servants to get advice on the queries that have been raised in the debate. We know that the Minister of State is a personable fellow, and that when he is in a tight corner, he does not come out fighting, but comes out with a few jokes in an effort to avoid answering the many questions that are put to him. I appeal to him not to adopt his normal Lancastrian knock-about turn but to address himself to the serious points that have been raised by the Opposition. He should not take the total absence of Conservative Members as a sign that they are not concerned about these matters.
We know that the leader of the Conservative party makes a point of not reading The Guardian. However, many of us read that paper regularly, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, he being a perceptive fellow, does so, and if we have been reading The Guardian recently we will know that many Conservative Members have been giving him a hard time about the lack of consultation. They have been surprised and dismayed at the financial consequences of those proposals on many of their constituents. They are dismayed at the way in which these cuts are to be steamrollered through the House of Commons.
I urge the Minister to counsel his Secretary of State on these matters. We have been told that the Secretary of State wishes to distance himself from these proposals and that he has left the Minister of State to stew in the difficulties. That may explain his predicament tonight. We urge him seriously to consider withdrawing these proposals. If the Government really want to help poor people, including pensioners, if they are serious about tackling the poverty trap, if they are serious about providing incentives to people to save and to secure proper or additional pension provision in their old age, and if they are serious about reducing the burdens on local

government and getting the Government off the back of local authorities, they have no alternative but to withdraw the proposals, think again, rethink the housing benefits scheme, and to have a thorough and independent inquiry into what has gone wrong.
Tonight the Minister has heard from my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in London, the midlands, and south and west Yorkshire that the scheme is a disaster and in chaos. I ask the Minister not to compound that chaos by adding his energies and voice to steamrollering the proposals through, because there is little prospect that local authorities will be in a position to implement them properly by next April.
If the Minister persists in his course he will cause still further hardship and difficulty to many working poor and pensioners who are in no position to withstand further pressures. He can help them by saying, at a stroke, that the Government will think again and withdraw the proposals. I hope that, if he cannot make such an announcement tonight, he will do so soon.

The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I cannot say that I looked forward to this debate, not because of the views expressed but because of the time. I recognise the concern expressed by hon. Members whose experience makes them take a keen interest in housing conditions in their constituencies.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is an ex-director of youth aid and connected with the unemployment unit. Her inner city constituency has problems of which I am aware and housing is a major factor. The same applies to constituency represented by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay). Islington and Hackney are familiar to me because I spent 13 years in that area when I was involved with schools. I know from trudging the streets, not to collect votes, but visiting primary schools and parents with problems, that intense housing problems exist there. The same applies to Bermondsey. The area represented by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) also has problems.
Hon. Members who have taken part in the debate represent urban areas. We shall have to examine such areas in relation to housing benefit. Reference has been made to consultation. Contact with local authorities has been re-established. The urgency with which we acted did not give the authorities much time. Letters went out yesterday extending consultation to 3 January. That could be said to be an accident or good timing. I shall be seeing local authority representatives on 4 January. We must have the report from the Social Security Advisory Committee before regulations are laid.
I accept that the costs are more than we expected from the original local authority estimates. Difficulties in implementation have been encountered and more people than expected have applied for housing benefit. The Government spent a third of a million pounds between January and March advertising the scheme. Many local authorities, including London authorities, spent large sums and more people are now applying. The debate at least has made more people aware that there is such a thing as housing benefit for which they can apply. We have guaranteed within all reasonable levels the coverage of all


the costs of the introduction of the scheme. There has been an argument about the way it has been done but there has been no intention to penny pinch.
I should like to defend the Government's record on social security spending. We are spending 20 per cent. more in real terms than was spent by the Labour Government in 1978–79. The spring Budget put £744 million more on social security expenditure and the Autumn statement, after cuts had been put in, still put in £163 million more than was forecast in the rolling programme in the previous public expenditure White Paper.

Ms. Clare Short: The Minister should think twice before boasting about the increase in the Government's social security expenditure, which has been brought about by the disaster of their economic policies which have thrown people who prefer to work and be productive into poverty and on to benefit.

Dr. Boyson: I was not boasting. When I want to boast I speak as loudly as Opposition Members. I was stating facts and figures. We are spending 20 per cent. more in real terms—part of that is on unemployment, but part of it is on the increase in benefits. Long-term supplementary benefit for a couple was £31·55 in 1978. If it were indexed for inflation it would be £51·70 now, but it is actually £54·55. Short-term supplementary benefit in 1978 was £23·25. If it were indexed for inflation, it would now be £41·35, but we are now giving £43·50. If I want to boast, it is higher, and the hon. Lady who has genuine concern — I appreciate genuine concern from anyone in the House—should welcome the fact that while prices have increased by 69 per cent. since we have been in office, FIS has increased by 86 per cent. Child benefit and one-parent benefit are at the highest rate ever. No one can say that the Government have not been concerned. One can argue about instances of expenditure — indeed, many people would like more expenditure all the time — but our expenditure on the sick and disabled is up by 21 per cent. in real terms since we came to office. Practically all benefits are higher in real terms than when we came to office [HON. MEMBERS Hear, hear"] My hon. Friends are enthusiastically supporting me on those points, which will give pleasure all around the House.
We must accept at the same time that expenditure must be controlled, that if we can improve some areas and consolidate there, other areas will have to be looked at. This autumn, housing benefits were looked at. I should like to point out the great increase in housing benefits over the past five to 10 years. Standard benefits have more than doubled in real terms in 11 years. Indexed for inflation, they rose from £500 million in 1972–73 to £1,200 million this year. More than twice as much in real terms is going on standard benefits. The level of rebates as a percentage of earnings in the past five years — years of Conservative Government—has risen from 3·6 per cent. to 4·9 per cent. In the past five years the average rent rebate has increased in real terms from £5·60 to £8·25. Reference was made to council tenants and I realise that many of the hon. Members present have a high proportion of council tenants in their constituencies—I have quite a high proportion of council tenants in Wembley, in my constituency—but in the past five years the number of council house tenants in England and Wales on rebate has increased from 1 million to 1·4 million. The tax cost at

present of housing benefit is £4 per household per week and is approaching £4 billion, which is one ninth of all the social security benefit. The actual figure for housing benefits is £6·9 million. About one third of households in the country receive housing benefits.
This year we have uprated the needs allowance by 4 per cent. The cuts introduced in the autumn statement are a decrease of 5 per cent. in total expenditure. They concentrate the changes — Opposition Members have referred to this; I will not go through the tapers and so on —on those with incomes above the needs allowance or those who have working non-dependants in their households. The majority of households are unaffected. Two thirds of pensioners are unaffected.
I explained the position in a debate earlier in the session when more hon. Members were present. If we look at the increase last April, the latest uprating and the changes proposed for next April — if these proposals goes through exactly as they are 2·5 million of the 4 million pensioner households will be better off in housing benefit than they were before April of last year.
I appreciate that there is the question of higher tapers, minimum payments, non-dependant deductions and high rents which are the four areas affected. About 60 per cent. of those involved are affected by less than 75p a week, and only 15 per cent. by £2 or more. I do not doubt any of the instances that were cited by Opposition Members. As, hypothetically, one could have housing benefits rising to a tremendous level—according to the way in which they are calculated — there will obviously be cases where considerable sums are involved. Nevertheless, in only 15 per cent. of cases affected next April will there be a difference of £2 or more a week. One third of pensioners who lose actually lose less than 25p a week, 50 per cent. lose less than 50p a week and, as has been said, the average is 80p.
Obviously Opposition Members have done their homework in their constituencies, but it is interesting to note that a single pensioner paying £500 a year in rates will get help with an income worth three times the state retirement pension, under the changes that come in next April. Those unaffected include all pensioners on supplementary benefit and those who do not have more than £9·75 of income above the state retirement pension. Nor is any pensioner non-dependant affected.
About 500,000 families will gain £1 increase in needs allowance in March for each dependent child. That has been agreed and will be put into operation. In relation to the non-dependant additions. Opposition Members have referred to the possibility of tension being caused in the family. I suggest that members of families have a degree of responsibility to put something in the kitty. That was the arrangement with which I grew up in working class Lancashire and I am sure that in most areas families feel the same. Provided that they are able to do so, members of families put something in the kitty.

Mr. Simon Hughes: People who are not the tenants of the property in question — the young wage-earner, perhaps a 19-year-old bringing in some income—will not realise the effect on the tenant, the parent — probably a single parent—of any change in his or her circumstances and may not appreciate the responsibility to take that into account. Nor will the tenant, the parent, realise that he or she should be expecting more from the youngster. Even if the fact is realised, the necessary


increase may not be paid over. It is a practical fact of life that youngsters will not give more than they feel they should.

Dr. Boyson: If the hon. Gentleman feels that a better means of communication is required to bring the point home, I am prepared to discuss the issue with local authorities or anybody else. The average wage of male 16 to 17-year-olds is £61 a week, and for female 16 to 17-year-olds it is £55·70 a week. We are asking them to give £3·10. For those on the average wage—and there must be as many above and below it, as Opposition Members point out about so many things—it does not seem unreasonable to say that £3·10 should be given as a share towards the maintenance of the house. Presumably parents talk to their children about such matters. I found out today, to my surprise, that the average wage of the 18 to 19-year-olds was £95 for the males and £78·20 for the females. There we have asked for an increase of £2·65, making £8·20. That is still only about 6 or 7 per cent. of the average wage being brought in. It is a question of treating them as adults, as under the old benefits system which we inherited.
At least we have looked after the poor. We have been hammered from time to time by the Opposition about taking people out of the poverty trap and the tax trap, and I appreciate the fact that there are problems. But in the case of children on supplementary benefit, the parent will continue to receive the full money and the children will not be expected to contribute. That will also apply if the children are on the YTS or at school. The children will be expected to tip in only if they are on unemployment benefit, which is over £27, or if they are at work. We must be given credit for trying to look after those with the least income.
The Government cannot be attacked on the question of the overall balance of expenditure in real terms, compared with what we inherited, on the various social welfare benefits. I am referring not to minor points but to the overall picture.
The introduction of housing benefit was talked about for a long time and was recommended by David Donnison when he was on the Supplementary Benefits Commission. It became law in 1982. I have been asked when the regulations will be laid. I have not discussed that yet, but we may as well do some policy-making tonight on that point. The questions that I have been asked suggest that

hon. Members wish to do some policy-making. Although we could lay the regulations before Parliament resumes, we will not do so until I have met the local authority associations—that would show courtesy on both sides—and until I have heard from the Social Security Advisory Committee and received its recommendations.
I have been told that we did not listen to the local authorities, but that is not correct. I believe that it was in October that I met the local authority associations. They suggested many amendments, most of which we adopted, at a cost of about £3 million. That is not a huge sum of money, but it shows that the Government are willing to listen. We absorbed about eight out of 10 of the suggestions that were made, and the scheme became simpler and clearer as a result.
I have been asked one very straightforward question which will be easy to answer. It was about the number of reviews. The other day I answered a question put by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on this point. On the information that we received from 1 April to 30 September—the information has not yet been brought up to date—6,232 reviews were carried out at official level and 303 cases referred to the review boards, which consist of the local councillors.
The Government followed the recommendations of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, chaired at the time by David Donnison. We agreed that the two systems did not work together and that people would find it easier to cope with one system. The legislation was enacted last year. The local authorities were given information for at least six months before they had to introduce the scheme. There are problems, of course. Some hon. Gentlemen know that there are problems, and that is why they are here. The fact that so many hon. Members are not present may mean that the housing benefit—

Ms. Clare Short: They do not care.

Dr. Boyson: They do care. We cannot set ourselves up as the goodies of society. Other people care as well. It shows me that the scheme has been introduced smoothly in many areas. My hon. Friends said that the scheme has worked smoothly in their areas.
Once the scheme works properly so that people have only one place to go to, and when the local social security officers have built up a relationship with the local authorities and they work more easily together, I believe that housing benefits will be of advantage. I have a feeling that this will not be the last time that we shall debate this subject.

Al-M1 (Cambridgeshire)

Sir Anthony Grant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for attending at this extraordinarily late hour to reply to the debate. She of course looks fresher and more charming than anyone.
My hon. Friend appreciates that I am a new boy to the Al-M1 link discussion. As she knows, before June the M25 occupied much of my time. The Al-M1 link has been under consideration since 1974. There has been an endless series of nagging questions on the subject in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was active in the interests of his constituents before he joined the Government team.
There can be no doubt that the provision of high standard routes between the industrial midlands and the haven ports is essential to our economy. At present there is no high standard east-west route between the M62 in the north and the M4-M25, which is the London, Bristol and south Wales route, in the south. Those two routes are 160 miles apart.
Within the EC, international traffic has increased twice as fast as national traffic over the past 10 years and that growth shows no sign of slowing. It would be a grave mistake for the Government to fail to provide a route of consistently high standard between the midlands and the haven ports serving the important markets of Germany, Holland and Belgium. The haven ports are the fastest growing in the United Kingdom and Felixstowe will shortly become the country's largest container port.
The introduction of the tachograph means that areas within a four-hour travel time contour will enable a return journey to be made within the day if there is a proper dual carriageway.
This vital third major east-west route is some 200 miles long and all except approximately 43 miles of Al-M1 link is built or firmly programmed to dual carriageway standards. I understand from the Department of Transport that east of Kettering there may well be single carriageway only. It would be crazy if short-term, penny-pinching economy results in a bottleneck there, because a dual carriageway east of Kettering is long overdue.
I shall quote to my hon. Friend, not unfavourably, what she said on 21 March 1983. She said that:
few would disagree that such a link is necessary. For too long now, the absence of a direct, high-quality east-west route for the growing volume of traffic between the midlands and the rapidly expanding east coast ports has left a serious gap in the country's road network."—[Official Report, 21 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 700.]
Those are wise words, with which I wholly agree.
My hon. Friend's Department predicts design year flows in Cambridgeshire of up to 18,600 vehicles per day —this is the average annual daily flow—of which some 25 per cent. or 4,500 a day are lorries. The Department suggests that under certain conditions, whatever those may be, the traffic can be accommodated only "at the expense of a much reduced level of service." This means that there will be hellish congestion with a single carriageway. In any event, traffic is growing in this corridor, and, indeed, throughout the eastern region, at a much higher rate than the national average.
I must warn my hon. Friend, therefore, that there is a risk that if the Government fail to recognise the importance of making this link dual carriageway throughout now,

firms may well be persuaded to re-locate in mainland Europe to ensure better access to markets. The manufacturing base of the midlands will be reduced, with disastrous consequences for employment and prosperity.
I understand that the Treasury uses a cost benefit analysis system to help it decide whether to authorise single or dual carriageways. I understand, further, that with the Al-M1 link it is currently borderline even on that formula. If the Government insist on what I maintain is a foolish, shortsighted, single carriageway decision, by the time the wretched thing is ultimately built the cost benefit analysis will justify a dual carriageway in any event. In those circumstances the Government will end up, I am afraid, with egg on their face.
Throughout history, short-term niggling bookkeepers have made wrong decisions. They have been wrong, for example, in their failure to buy embassy property abroad, but rather to lease it. I maintain that they were wrong over Maplin, which would have been built now at much lesser cost. Invariably they are wrong because they are unable to take the long-term view. My hon. Friend the Minister, on the other hand, with her responsibilities, has to look ahead. She has to be aware of the importance of transport to our economy and to our environment. Those are the economic and commercial arguments which I submit are overwhelmingly in favour of building a dual carriageway throughout the Al-M1 link without any more dither.
There are compelling social and environmental arguments as well. The area in question has rich agricultural land, with villages of great charm and beauty and communities which depend upon their maintenance. They are gradually being destroyed by the internal combustion engine and by heavy lorries in particular. I quote my hon. Friend the Minister, again favourably, speaking in the same debate on 21 March this year, when she said that
the existing routes are unsuitable for heavy lorries".
Later she said:
The residents of numerous towns and villages currently suffering from the effects of east-west traffic are pressing hard for action to relieve their problems."—[Official Report, 21 March 1983, Vol. 39, c. 700.]
I entirely agree with her.
Let me cite Kimbolton, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, which is, I believe, known to the Minister with affection or, at least, it has affection towards her, and the village of Great Staughton in my constituency. Many more villages could be cited, of course. I can tell my hon. Friend that only the other day an enormous juggernaut turned over completely in the main village street of Great Staughton, by a miracle not killing anybody, but causing total chaos in a small, delightful rural community. These great beasts are necessary for our economic survival, because of course goods have to be moved, but the proper place for them is on roads constructed for the express purpose, not on roads and through villages which were born in an earlier, more peaceful rural age.
I know that my hon. Friend, who is one of our most successful Ministers, understands the urgency of building a proper Al-M1 link; and I know, too, that her battle is with the Treasury. When I was in the Government I had many similar problems, and I discovered that the best way to stir that body into action was for Government Members—spurred themselves by people outside—to make it clear that they were no longer prepared to put up with


Treasury blocking. Many hon. Members share my views, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who has taken the trouble to be here at this late hour to speak in the debate. Many people outside the House also share my views, including political, industrial and trade union leaders in the west and east midlands, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Northamptonshire and the haven ports.
My hon. Friend the Minister has the great advantage of having as the Secretary of State a former Treasury Minister. Let him be a gamekeeper turned poacher, and let them and their Department shake the Treasury out of its torpor and, in the interests of the entire nation, get something done. If they do, they will earn the plaudits not only of my constituents but of the nation.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) on raising this important matter even though at a late hour. He spoke with his customary eloquence, and his arguments were completely convincing. It is a great pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Minister in her usual place. We look forward to her response to the debate, and her reputation as a far-seeing and helpful Minister precedes her.
The Al-M1 link rises in my constituency, so I am well aware of the benefits that would accrue from its early construction. I am a Member from the west midlands, and I am familiar with the industries and business needs of that area. The link is important for at least four reasons. First, it would provide a new, fast route to the east coast ports for the industries and factories of the west midlands. It would aid exports, especially to Germany, Scandinavia and the Soviet Union, and would especially assist heavy industry and the transport of motor vehicles to those markets. It would reduce unemployment by attracting new businesses, and would make existing industry more competitive. That point was especially well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West.
On 12 March 1980, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health—then Under-Secretary of State for Transport—said:
My right hon. Friend is well aware of the importance attached by British industry to this section of the route to the Haven ports."—[Official Report, 12 March 1980; Vol. 1000, c. 617.]
My hon. and learned Friend's remarks were entirely right, and the quote shows for how long this matter has been considered.
The second reason why this route is important is that the MI is grossly overloaded, and this link would take some of the traffic that currently uses that motorway. Those who use the MI regularly, as I do, will know how congested it becomes, will be familiar with the repairs that are carried out every few miles, with the dangers inherent in contraflow traffic, and with the number of accidents. We are worried about road safety on the M1, and the benefits of the Al/MI link will be measured not only in money or time but in the number of lives saved.
On 25 June 1980, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) told the Select Committee on Transport that

the MI-Al link which is generally agreed to be a vital road in a European as well as a national context … was originally planned in the 1978 White Paper, to start in 1981–83.
Therefore, it already appears that that much-needed link is running behind schedule.
My third reason for supporting the early completion of the link is that it would help the construction industry. It would provide work and also increase investment in the infrastructure. My hon. Friend will be aware of my interest in the matter. I very much hope that the new road will be constructed in concrete. I am aware that concrete construction costs twice as much as the equivalent construction in tarmac, but my hon. Friend will be aware that concrete lasts twice as long, so the road will continue to function without costly repairs and the number of accidents associated with those repairs. Roads constructed in concrete are generally safer than roads constructed in tarmacadam because their design allows the water to run off more quickly, therefore reducing the risks of aquaplaning. There is a film in the Department's archives that underlines the point about aquaplaning and I realise that my hon. Friend will be aware of that.
The next point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West. I am concerned, as he is, about the fact that much of the new road is proposed to be single carriageway. I very much support what my hon. Friend said. That would indeed be a greivous error. We are not being sufficiently far sighted. It reminds me of the old saying about buying cheap being in the long run to buy dear. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that matter.
I refer to the minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee on Transport on Wednesday 2 July 1980. In a memorandum submitted by the British Road Federation Limited on the roads White Paper, it is stated:
The White Paper itself points out: 'the fact remains that provision of an adequate road network is a prime requirement for any industrial society. It would be irresponsible not to press ahead with essential schemes' … Britain devotes 0·5 per cent. of its GDP to road construction while Germany devotes 1·2 per cent. and France 0·9 per cent. of a much higher GDP. Yet both Germany and France already have a superior road network to our own; for example in 1978, Germany had nearly three times the motorway network, and France nearly twice.
Those are the comparisons that one must strike with our continental competitors.
My fourth reason is that present roads to the east coast are overloaded. Heavy vehicles, articulated lorries, container lorries, transporters and low loaders all rumble through our towns and villages. We are all aware of the pollution that comes in their wake—the noise, the smoke, the smell, the fumes and the vibration. We are equally aware of the problems of road safety and the number of road accidents in the villages and towns through which those heavy vehicles travel. We are aware of the damage to property, roads, sewers, drains and water mains. All that has a cost but there is also a cost to be measured in delays, frustration and added wear on vehicles. All of us in the House will agree that heavy trucks, congested narrow streets, and people equal injury and distress. There must be a clear case for trying to keep them separate.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): indicated assent.

Mr. Pawsey: I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister nodding in agreement. I know that she is aware of the issues and that she is as concerned as we are about road safety.
All road traffic, be it cars, vans, trucks or whatever, is increasing. If the link is not speedily commenced, more men, women and children will be involved in road accidents and more deaths and injuries will occur. New roads are like rivers—they attract commerce, industry and jobs and bring prosperity. Roads can be compared with arteries. When they become clogged, thrombosis results. The same applies to industry. It is paramount that we ensure that our road network is in good condition and adequate for our modern society.
I wish finally to quote from a document entitled
Policy for Roads in England: 1983",
which states:
The remaining significant gap in the links needed by Midlands industry is the MI-Al link via Kettering. Detailed proposals for this have now been published and a public inquiry should be held early next year".
I hope that the inquiry finds for the road and that a speedy start will soon be announced. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments. Knowing her as I do, I am sure it will be a helpful contribution and will hold out hope to hard-pressed villages in the area and to industry in the west midlands.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) for participating in this important debate about a much-needed road scheme.
One of my first tasks when I went to the Department of Transport in 1982 was to walk over a substantial part of the route. Since then, I have driven from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) across the existing routes taken by the traffic coming into the area via the haven ports and the exports going from the west midlands and the northwest out through the haven ports.
I am aware of the acute problems facing villages such as Kimbolton where, on each occasion that I have passed through, I have had to reverse and wait until heavy goods vehicles have negotiated the two right-hand bends in the village. Although I do not know the village of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West intimately, I am aware of the problems caused by wide and heavy loaded lorries.
The need for the M1-A1 link road is not in question. The road as proposed goes from the MI across to the A14, which is a little to the east of the A 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West quoted from the March debate. For too long there has been the absence of a direct, high quality east-west route for the growing volume of traffic between the midlands and the east coast ports. It is a serious gap in the country's road network. To the west of the Ml, the M6 and the M45 give good road access to the industrial west midlands and the north-west, while east of the Al the A14 now bypasses Huntingdon and the A604 and A45 have been progressively improved to provide a dual carriageway route all the way to Ipswich.
Progress has been made. With the completion of the Ipswich western bypass on which construction is due to

start in February 1984, this high standard road will continue to the ports of Felixstowe and Ipswich and help with access to the port of Harwich. Between the M6 and the Al, however, there is no direct east-west route, and the existing routes are unsuitable for heavy lorries. Industrialists in the west midlands are convinced that a new road is essential for the future prosperity of the area.
There is a unique agreement between the CBI and the TUC which, two months ago, jointly requested that the entire link should be built as a dual two-lane carriageway.
I am convinced of the necessity for the road. The east coast port authority, and many others, are equally convinced that the continued growth in their area, and continued growth in the west midlands, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said, depends on the completion of the link from the M6 to the Al and the A14. Above all, I know that the residents of the numerous towns and villages currently suffering the effects of east-west through traffic are pressing for action to relieve their problems.
We are well aware of the high rate of traffic growth, which is above the national average. It has been reflected in the traffic surveys carried out both last year and this year. We took that into account both in our scheme design and in our economic assessment of carriageway standards. But on future growth in east Anglia, it is our policy to consider the effects of both high and low growth forecasts with an open mind. That is in accordance with the recommendations of the Leitch committee and the standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment.
The surveys taken have given us additional information. I am grateful to Cambridgeshire county council for its part in that. It has been consistent in pointing out to the Department just how great the growth has been, especially in non-oil freight tonnage coining from the haven ports; since our entry into the European Economic Community.
There has been great growth at Felixstowe. Tonnage in 1973 had doubled by 1982. The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has predicted that the volume of traffic through the port in 1982 will double by 1990. We also see encouraging growth at Harwich and Ipswich. It is clear that more than 90 per cent. of the tonnage handled by the haven ports is road freight, with half of it bound for the midlands and the north-west industrial area. We are well aware of the pressures that that places on countryside areas that need relief from heavy goods vehicles on unsuitable roads.
Another urgent need is to improve road access to Corby and so encourage the industrial regeneration of that town. The same considerations apply, although to a slightly lesser extent, to Kettering. There is no doubt about the benefits that the MI-A 1 link road will provide. It is the missing 45-mile link in the midlands to the east coast ports route. Together with the proposed Kettering northern bypass, it will bring the much-needed improvement in road communications with Corby.
By taking traffic directly from the Ml-M6 junction at Catthorpe across to the A6 south of Rothwell, then on via the Kettering southern bypass and the eastern section of the link towards the A1, it will provide the shortest and best link. It will remove the through traffic from many communities on existing roads. At the eastern end of the link road, the villages of Bythorn and Ellington in Cambridgeshire will benefit directly, while other


communities further from the route, such as Kimbolton, will benefit from the reduction of east-west traffic on the A45.
There are problems with taking any road through what is mainly agricultural countryside. It is fair for people to argue that there are losses as well as gains with any new route. The published proposals for the link road scheme will take a fair amount of agricultural land. I am obviously concerned when we have to take agricultural land to improve our industrial communications. We have made a deliberate effort to design the route to follow existing farm boundaries. By using the disused railway between Kettering and Thrapston and generally upgrading the A604 from there to Brompton, farm severance on the eastern section of the link road has been kept to a minimum.
With so many farms involved, we are obviously anxious to mitigate the impact of the road as much as we can, and that is why we are already engaged in many discussions with the farmers affected. About 720 acres of agricultural land are affected. After discussion with the farmers affected and the National Farmers Union, I am sure that we shall be able to decide on a route that will cause the minimum agricultural damage to the area. We have appointed specialist agricultural consultants to advise on matters such as severance and farm management, and they will have further discussions with the farmers and their agents.
Both my hon. Friends stressed the need for this link road to proceed as quickly as possible, but it is clear from the comments received since the draft orders for a link road were published in November 1982 that not everyone shares the view of my Department or my hon. Friends of the route that the link road should take. In addition to numerous local variations, no fewer than four full-scale alternative strategies have been put forward by objectors. My officials are discussing those alternatives in detail with the objectors promoting them and are investigating all of their implications. We want to ensure that the Department and its opponents have all the information necessary to hold a full debate on the relative merits of the published proposals and any alternatives to them. The forum for that debate will be the forthcoming public inquiry.
We are pressing ahead as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said that we are behind schedule in building such a road, and that may be true. We are always wise after the event. We can look back and say, "Why did we not build the road 10 years ago?" We are not losing any time in undertaking a thorough preparation for the public inquiry and of the alternative routes. That is necessary if we are to have a proper debate at that public inquiry. Both my hon. Friends will know that the public inquiry and the statutory processes that will follow will necessarily be lengthy for such a complex development. Even so, the published scheme could be completed by 1989—much sooner than any of the alternative strategies put forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned the type of construction and safety. I am aware of his views and those of others about whether to use concrete or tarmacadam. There are high safety standards for both materials, and I assure both my hon. Friends that we are not penny-pinching in any way about the safeguards for the type of construction of this road.
I come to perhaps the kernel of the argument—the standard of the road in the section from Kettering eastwards to Thrapston and across to the Al and the A14. If we get the go-ahead to construct the road on its present alignment, we must decide the important issue of whether we should build the road as a dual carriageway from the M1 to Kettering, but a single carriageway east of Kettering, or as a dual carriageway the whole way. That is a matter of intense concern to me, a large number of hon. Members, local authorites, interested organisations and members of the public. Our published proposals are for a single carriageway road east of Kettering, but I must decide soon whether that is right or whether the invitations from many concerned that it should be an entirely dual carriageway scheme should go forward to the public inquiry.
I know that my hon. Friend is a decisive supporter of an all-dual carriageway scheme. He may also know that all three county councils concerned — not just Cambridgeshire, but Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, too—as well as four of the five district councils most concerned also favour dual carriageway throughout.
In fact, nearly 10 per cent. of the objections that we have received are because we did not originally promote an all-dual scheme. They include the objections of Cambridgeshire county council, Huntingdon district council, local authorities in East Anglia, industrial and commercial interests in the west midlands and East Anglia and national organisations such as the CBI and TUC.
Strong support for that view has come from Members throughout the House. I and the Department have taken careful account of those views and of the most recent surveys which show that the volume of traffic likely to use the route is growing more quickly than was forecast before we issued our proposals for a part-dual and part-single carriageway road. The traffic surveys also improve the economic case an all-dual carriageway solution.
Even so, the issue is not entirely straightforward and requires very careful thought. We must look for value for money. I am sure that neither of my hon. Friends would wish to do otherwise. The cost is considerable—up to £100 million. I believe that there is no doubt as to the wisdom of a dual carriageway road between the M1 and Kettering — that is, as far as the A6 — and our investigations to date suggest that dual carriageways can be fully justified over the 25-mile western section of the route between the M1 and the A6 south-east of Kettering. There was always the probability that if we had opted for a single carriageway solution there we should have had to upgrade it to dual carriageway at some future time. The expected volume of traffic, the nature of the terrain and the large number of bridge structures required meant that the bridges would have had to be constructed from the outset to cope with dual carriageways, not to mention additional earthworks to provide for safe overtaking on a single carriageway. The cost of all that made it economically preferable to build a dual carriageway for the western section from the outset.
On the other hand, the terrain east of Kettering does not entail those difficulties and, until we had completed our most recent surveys, the expected level of traffic would not have justified a dual carriageway solution on economic grounds. Prima facie the results of the surveys make a case for such a solution, although it is not yet clear to me that it is a conclusive case. That is one of the reasons why we


are still studying it. I hope to reach a decision in the very near future. I am impressed by the case for dualling throughout, though there are possible disadvantages.
There are several factors in favour. First, traffic in the eastern counties and along this route is likely to grow faster than the national average, as both my hon. Friends and many others have pointed out. Secondly, if the Government's proposals for the third London airport at Stansted are approved the level of traffic will be even greater. There is also the still speculative but nevertheless real possibility of the Wonderworld leisure complex at Corby. Thirdly, Corby is developing rapidly and we know that industrially its transport needs are road oriented. Fourthly, the haven ports are expanding and 90 per cent. of their freight tonnage will be by road. With the eastern counties, the main beneficiaries of a high quality dual carriageway road will be the midlands and the north-west. Against that l must set the extra cost of dualling the road east of Kettering at some £20 million—an increase of 25 per cent.—which makes the economic case for that solution more difficult to substantiate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West knows that that was not straightforward in the first place. There is the possibility of going ahead with a single carriageway scheme east of Kettering on the basis that it could be dualled later if traffic levels justified our doing so.
I am conscious that delay does nobody any good. It certainly does not help my post bag or bring us to the public inquiries more quickly. In reaching a decision, we must take account of all of the arguments. I accept that there is an extremely attractive argument in favour of constructing the road to dual standard throughout its length. I am impressed with those arguments and although there are some possible drawbacks which have delayed a final decision, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West that I shall make a decision as speedily as possible and that I do not intend to keep the House or my hon. Friends waiting long for a decision. I thank them for raising the issue.

Licensing Laws

Mr. James Couchman: I cannot think of a more appropriate time of the year for the House to review the operation of the licensing laws as they relate to the sale of alcoholic beverages. This is the festive season although I suspect that, after last Saturday's atrocity, this will be a reflective rather than a joyful Christmas.
I feel that I must at the outset establish my credentials to speak on the subject and to declare my interest in the sale of drink. For the past 14 years I have worked for my family's company which operates, as a multiple tenant, several brewery-owned public houses. For the first four years I managed, with my wife, a large pub in south-east London. For the following six years I acted as general manager and, since 1980, 1 have been half owner and director of my family company, a position which I still combine with my duties as a Member of this House.
My family has run public houses in Pimlico for the past 80 years, and I am proud to be a third generation publican. Contrary to the efforts of one of my hon. Friends to make selling drink a disreputable business in the furtherance of his temperance commitment, the calling of publican is an honourable trade and requires a great deal of hard work and not a little skill. I am a member of the National Union of Licensed Victuallers and what I have to say owes much to its excellent submission on licensing legislation reform, "The Case for Change".
I recognise that the constraints of debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill mean that I cannot ask for reforming legislation. I hope, however, to offer a case which shows how profoundly unsatisfactory are the present laws regarding the sale of liquor. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the pressures for reform which are building up among my fellow licensees. Their restiveness is understandable bearing in mind the extreme caution of successive Governments in reforming licensing legislation. Their disaffection is the more justifiable bearing in mind the massive contribution that the licensed trade makes to the Exchequer each year. That contribution is taken for granted by successive Chancellors who assume on the part of long-suffering licensees a little more goodwill each Budget day.
I do not propose to review the whole gamut of complex legislation regulating the sale of drink. The Erroll Committee reported more than 10 years ago and covered a wide range of suggested reforms. Licensees have now despaired of comprehensive reform and have set their sights much lower. There is still considerable debate about under-age drinking and there can be few in the trade who aspire to a significant lowering of the legal age for drinking in on-licensed premises. Children being allowed into licensed premises is regulated by sections 168 to 171 of the Licensing Act 1964. Reform of those sections would be highly sensitive and contentious.
There are several arguments for and against allowing children into the areas not specially designated when accompanied by their parents. The strongest argument in favour of it is that it would open up the possibility of families being able to take advantage of the good value bar food that so many pubs now offer. Those who argue against relaxation ignore the fact that children can be taken into working men's clubs, licensed restaurants and hotels from the day that they are born, without restrictions. The


spectacle of children sitting outside pubs in all weathers and late in the evening, although no longer as common as it once was, will doubtless continue as long as the temperance case prevails. Parents will continue to leave children at home and alone and at considerable risk, to go to the pub. I cite the unfortunate and tragic death of Lucie Gates in the borough of Bexley, while I was concerned with the social services and health services in that borough. Her feckless mother went off to the pub leaving her on her own, and a tragic accident resulted in Lucie's death. However, this morning is not the time for arguing the case for allowing children into public houses with their parents.
It is in their ability to compete fairly with other licensed premises that publicans feel most hampered. Their grievance is based on a number of factors. They feel much disadvantaged by the laws that give working men's clubs such attraction, such as jackpot fruit machines that allow subsidised drink prices, the admission of children, the highly favourable tax and rates position of clubs as compared with pubs, the fact that a policeman needs a magistrate's warrant to enter a club and the greater flexibility of hours enjoyed by clubs.
It is worth noting that the notion that clubs are an extension of the home is now a misleading fiction. Many clubs resemble, in the works of Erroll:
large well appointed public houses and the sort of activity apparent during the Committee's visits—particularly in the bars—was very much what one would expect in any public house.
Interestingly, when a new club opens in an area, there is an assiduous but covert recruiting of members around the pubs.
Clubs have strayed a long way from the Working Men's Club and Institute Union manifesto of 1826 which stated:
This union is formed for the purpose of helping working men to establish clubs and institutes where they can meet for conversation, business and mental improvement, with the means of recreation and refreshment, free from intoxicating drinks.
In practice, clubs have become pubs, without many of the restrictions applied to pubs and operated by amateur committees, untutored in the disciplines which constrain a publican anxious to preserve his licence.
Publicans consider themselves threatened by "take-home" trade. Off-licences have a great advantage in the matter of opening hours, for off-licensees may open during weekdays from 8.30 am to the terminal hour prevailing in the area without an afternoon break, and only on Sunday do off-licences have to conform to pub hours. Supermarkets offer particularly unfair competition with their unsupervised shelves selling drink at virtually no profit as a near loss-leader and being checked out by very young check-out staff. Here, indeed, is the stuff of unfair competition which may very well act against the public interest in commercial and health terms.
Public house licensees feel threatened by the situation which has led to an immense proliferation of the number of licensed premises other than public houses. From the Licensing Act 1961, which withdrew the absolute discretion of licensing justices to refuse the grant of a residential or restaurant licence, arose an additional 13,000 licences in 10 years. That pace has barely slackened since the early 1970s.
Above all, however, it is over the question of permitted opening hours that licensees feel that the most urgent

action is needed. While licensees are not totally agreed about what they would like to see, they are united almost totally in the view that our antiquated structure of permitted hours is long overdue for liberalisation. Such a change would allow a flexibility of hours appropriate to the area in which a pub is situated. There have been restrictions on hours at various times since the 17th century and continuously since the Licensing Act 1872. It has to be said that the 1872 Act was liberal indeed, because on weekdays, it allowed opening of 18 or 19 hours. It was the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) Act 1915 which empowered a licquor control board to enforce quite draconian restrictions on opening hours.
The 1921 Act allowed a slight relaxation of the control board orders, but in London permitted hours were to be a maximum of nine hours per day, and elsewhere eight, with the justices allowed discretion to set the hours in London between 11 pm and 10 pm, and elsewhere between 11 am and 10 pm, with a mandatory break of at least two hours in the afternoon. On Sunday, the norm would be five hours.
The permitted hours have been relaxed only very slightly since 1921, and the 1964 Act brought in the concept of 10 minutes "drinking up time"—a source of great friction between licensees and the police and between licensees and their customers.
I have the tenancy of seven public houses in widely diverse situations, all within the GLC area. The only thing they have in common is the permitted hours, which are common to all of them except one, which falls into the more restricted metropolitan Kent area. That is nonsense, because the trading circumstances and patterns are totally different. When one considers that those licensing hours were established for the metropolis, the suburbs, the provinces and coastal resorts some 60 years ago, when lifestyles were vastly different, one has an uneasy feeling that we may be carrying British tradition too far.
As I said earlier, licensees are agreed that they want flexibility of hours. They are less sure of precisely what that means. Erroll looked very carefully at the question of hours, and spoke of
the widespread expectation that future changes in patterns of employment and leisure would result in consumer demands at times of day that were not envisaged at the time the present system of permitted hours was first established.
Erroll concluded that licensees should be able to choose from up to 14 hours, from 10 am in the morning to midnight, with no pressure from, for example, the brewers to be open for all those hours.
The NULV, in "The Case for change", concluded that the mandatory break of two hours in the afternoon should be retained but agreed with Erroll that hours should be determined by licensees, without pressure from their landlords, and chosen from the hours of 10 am to midnight, with a two-hour break in the afternoon. A further thought from the NULV was that seasonal variations might be applied to areas with seasonal and tourist appeal. For myself, I believe that an ability to choose up to a maximum permitted 10 hours from the period 10 am to midnight, but without a mandatory break in the afternoon, would be a satisfactory compromise. That would fall far short of Erroll, but would represent a great advance on the present situation.
It is, of course, quite possible to drink on licensed premises legally for much of the day now. One can start in the early houses around Smithfield market and Covent


garden — we could be there now — and progress at normal opening time to the normal pubs, and drink there until 3 pm. We could progress either to a registered club or to one of the shadowy "proprietary" clubs, which seem to enjoy very peculiar hours, and we could return again to the pub at 5.30 and drink through, with the benefit of special hours certificates, to 2 am. If one is prepared to drink illegally, the gap between 2 am and the reopening of the market houses is bridgeable. Unfortunately, an irresponsible minority of publicans, desperate to make a living in otherwise unviable houses, will oblige their more enthusiastic customers by serving after hours. They risk their licences and, thus, their livelihood, and they bring the law into contempt. They do so because the overheads and competitive pressures dictate their illegal action. In parts of London, this pernicious practice is growing, and the police, with many other calls on their time, seem less than enthusiastic to stamp it out. A law that is out of date and does not serve the people well and that is held in contempt by a significant proportion of the people, is a law that is in urgent need of reform.
I have no doubt that the temperance lobby will disagree with me and quote alarming statistics on alcoholism. I would counter that by citing the supermarkets as the real villains of the piece. The virtually unrestricted sale of alcohol from such outlets has created the most serious social problems. The concept of ready sale to all and sundry never made sense. The sale of drink in supermarkets where prices are low and hence attractive to the alcoholic should be confined to a shop within a shop presided over by a responsible adult. Giving publicans, who mostly treat their responsibilities very seriously, a greater freedom and flexibility to choose hours to suit their customers is unlikely to exacerbate the problem of alcoholism.
As Erroll reported on England and Wales, Clayson reported on Scotland. The difference is that while Erroll gathers dust at the Home Office, Clayson's recommendations resulted in Scottish licensees being allowed to go to the licensing board to apply for opening hours between 11 am and 11 pm. Since the introduction of that comparatively liberal regime in 1976, the statistics for alcoholism and drunkenness in Scotland have been encouraging. I understand that the Rev. Bernard Kinman of the United Kingdom alliance temperance organisation has talked sympathetically with NULV about its case for flexi-hours.
The British pub is a worthy institution with a history which can be traced back to the Roman occupation of Britain. The British pub deserves to survive and to evolve as a valuable part of our leisure industry. It is presently under severe threat as other parts of the leisure and alcohol-related industry appear to be treated more favourably. The need for change is urgent. I hope —even though I cannot ask today—that Ministers will heed the calls from the English Tourist Board and the licensed trade organisations to review the licensing laws as they relate to the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on his diligence in raising this important subject at this hour in the morning. I also congratulate him on the way in which he presented a number of basic facts.
I want to deal with one aspect — tourism. It may seem strange for a Birmingham Member to be interested in tourism, but Birmingham has taken a great initiative in establishing the Birmingham Convention and Visitors Bureau for the promotion of business tourism, encouraging conferences arid attracting to the city arid the west midlands business people who, as well as attending conferences are able to visit attractive places such as Stratford, Warwick, and Lichfield. That development could make a significant contribution to the west midlands' economy.
I welcome the idea that the economy should have the benefit of such diversification. That is important for the provision of jobs and the training of young people in worthwhile skills.
On every hand emphasis is placed on the difficulties caused by the licensing laws. The demand for reform is strongly supported by those who organise tourist events. They want the Government to attend to these important matters in the near future. I ask the Minister to acknowledge this important aspect. We have to improve the system to give us a chance to develop our tourist industry successfully.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) has focused our attention on the licensing laws, as they affect the sale of alcohol, in a most helpful and eloquent way. He has, of course, very properly declared his expertise in this area, based on many years of personal involvement and many more years of involvement by close members of his family. He has demonstrated in his speech an expertise that will be of great value in discussing these issues in. the House. I am glad that he has found an early opportunity to raise the matter. It is also a great pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) in his place at this early hour. I take his point about tourism and appreciate that a number of Members feel strongly on the issue, as he does.
This is a subject dear to many hearts—perhaps dearer to my heart at 7.25 in the evening than at 7.25 in the morning. I never thought, particularly as Christmas approaches, that I would be appalled at the prospect of being able to have a drink at this moment in a pub near a market in preference to speaking in the House of Commons. I think that this is about the one hour when I really would prefer to be speaking in the House of Commons to sitting in a pub.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham reviewed a large number of outstanding items in the present licensing arrangements. Although he fell short, as the rules require, of calling for change, he obviously indicated a degree of dissatisfaction with the present arrangements and it would be appropriate for me to try to cover the ground and let him know exactly what the Government's present thinking is so that he will know where he stands in what I am sure will be a continuing dialogue in the months ahead between myself and him and a number of hon. Members who think like him.
The law relating to the sale by retail of intoxicating liquor is largely contained in the Licensing Act 19(4, which is an extremely complex piece of legislation. The whole structure of the present licensing system rests on the proposition that intoxicating liquor cannot be sold or


supplied without some form of prior permission. I know that that is acceptable to my hon. Friend, just as it has always seemed imperative to successive Governments. It is an offence to sell liquor by retail without a justice's licence or in contravention of the conditions attached to a licence.
There are, in effect, five separate classifications of licence — the on-licence, which is the one most frequently held by public houses selling drink for consumption on or off the premises, and is the one with which my hon. Friend is most familiar from his own experience; the off-licence, with which we are all familiar; the restaurant licence, which is subject to the condition that drink can be sold only to persons taking meals in the restaurant and for consumption as an ancillary to the meal; the residential licence, enabling those staying at a hotel or guest-house to purchase alcohol; and the combined residental and restaurant licence.
In the case of on and off-licences, the licence can either allow the sale of intoxicating liquor of all descriptions or a more limited range of alcoholic drinks. The licensing justices for each petty sessional division are given under the legislation complete discretion whether to grant or refuse on an off-licence in the new applications and of applications for renewal. The discretion of the justices with regard to restaurant, residential and the combined residential and restaurant licence is very much more limited. They may not refuse an application except on certain specified grounds which, for the most part, relate to the character of the applicant, the suitability of the premises, and the way in which they have been conducted. The principal effect of these limitations on the justices' discretion is that they cannot take into account whether a demand or need exists in the locality for this particular type of premises.
Whether the licensing justices should be required by law to take into account the number of existing licensed premises in the area when considering a new application for a licence has always been a controversial issue. There is at present no statutory obligation on them to do so, but I understand that when deciding whether to grant a new on-licence, most will consider the question of need.
The Erroll committee report, which was much referred to by my hon. Friend and which was published in 1972, recommended that the justices' power to refuse licences should be restricted to specific grounds which would have excluded the criterion of need in an area. Successive Governments, however, have refrained from implementing that recommendation on the ground that to do so might lead to a proliferation of new licences and thus exacerbate the problems of alcohol misuse.
The alternative proposal—one which is advocated by organisations such as that with which my hon. Friend is associated, the National Union of Licensed Victuallers, with which I enjoy a dialogue on these important matters — is that the law should be amended to require the justices to consider need. Such an amendment could lead to a restriction on the number of new licences issued in particular areas, and I can understand its attraction to existing licensees on that basis. Many would undoubtedly find this proposition attractive, but in the Government's view it is not the function of the licensing laws to protect existing licensees from legitimate competition. On that basis, therefore, I cannot promise any early change.
It may be helpful if at this stage I offer some statistics on the number of licensed premises in England and Wales. On 30 June 1983, there was a total of 137,031 premises holding on and off-licences, including restaurants, guest houses and licensed clubs. In the year ending 30 June of this year, 6,391 new on and off-licences had been granted. These statistics show that, far from being a declining industry, the licensed trade continues to grow at a steady rate. However, I appreciate—and I am sure that my hon. Friend would be quick to tell me — that the statistics do not tell the whole story. It is not the case that all sections of the licensed trade are satisfied with the licensing laws as they stand or believe that they are able to make as good a living as they could otherwise, reasonably and properly, be allowed to make if the legal restrictions were a little less strict. I understand that point, and there are many who have sympathy with it.
That brings me to the central question of flexible opening hours—an issue which has concerned both of my hon. Friends who have spoken, and the question of the admission of children to pubs. It also raises the issue of private clubs. I recognise that there is some resentment among the licensed trade at the position of private clubs, because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are social arrangements for authorising the supply of liquor in private clubs.
The matter of flexible hours is perhaps the most controversial issue and certainly the issue behind which most sentiment is gathering for a change. I recognise that and in no sense do I resent it. It is necessary that we should have a proper debate on the matter and it is encouraging that so many people are anxious to join in that debate and are particularly keen to advance arguments from a number of standpoints, I welcome the importance that a number of hon. Members are attaching to our thriving and growing tourist industry, the subject which brought my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green to his feet.
We at the Home Office have received many representations on this subject from the licensed trade and other interested organisations. The trade has been particularly worried about the adverse effects which the wider economic recession has had on its profitability and believes that the solution lies in its members being permitted to open for longer hours or being able to vary the existing hours so that they attract more custom.
The tourist industry has supported the trade, as I have indicated, on the ground—this was well set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green — that the existing licensing hours are unattractive to tourists and compare unfavourably with those in many counties on the Continent.
Those in favour of greater flexibility cite the experience of Scotland, where an extension of permitted hours was brought about by the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. In two of the more difficult responsibilities that I carry, Scotland has been responsible for blazing a trail. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) applauds that fact.
The Scots have been able to establish, to the satisfacation of many, that they can keep a perfectly proper respect for the Sabbath while, at the same time, allowing considerable flexibillity for the opening of shops in areas where the community thinks it right and it serves the trading interests of the shopkeepers. Following in the wake of the Scots, but recognising that it is a controversial


matter, we have established a committee of inquiry to advise us on whether there is a case for changing the English law.
Similarly, many people look north of the border at the Scottish licensing arrangements, which allow flexibility but do not require it when it is not necessary. The essential difference between the English and the Scottish provisions lies, as I have already indicated, in the discretion given to the licensing authorities in Scotland to vary the general permitted hours of opening. No one would suggest that it should be compulsory for premises to open at a particular time. Those who advocate change feel that anyone who wishes to do so, and can make a proper case to the licensing authorities for so doing should be free to open.
The prescribed hours of opening are broadly similar in the two countries. Public houses may open on weekdays between 11 am and 10.30 or 11 pm, with a break of two or two and a half hours in the afternoon. The hours on Sunday are shorter, but still broadly the same in both countries.
In England and Wales the power of the licensing justices to grant regular extensions is tightly circumscribed. As a general rule, early morning and afternoon extensions may be granted only, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said, in the vicinity of markets, and extensions beyond the evening terminal hours are available only where the sale of drink is ancillary to the provision of food or music and dancing.
In Scotland, since 1976, there has been a much wider discretion and the licensing boards may grant extensions for any part of the day in respect of individual premises, if they consider it desirable. They bear in mind the social circumstances of the locality and the activities taking place there. This power has been widely used to permit Scottish public houses to open during the afternoon break and late at night, particularly in the larger towns and cities.
We recognise that the present liquor licensing law for England and Wales may be in need of revision, but we take the view that any move towards liberalisation must be compatible with our strategy for helping to prevent the misuse of alcohol. I know that my hon. Friend will wish to face this problem, which is the major obstacle to a change in the law. The Home Office has to hold the ring between the competing claims of a number of different people. Representatives of the trade or the tourist industry very properly ask us for change, but those who are deeply concerned about alcohol misuse tell us that to allow flexible opening hours would be a move in the wrong direction. We have to try to reach a sensible decision. Our job would be much easier if there were consensus.
Whether or not this is relevant to the question of flexible hours, indicators of the harm caused by alcohol misuse are showing a serious deterioration, and the social and economic costs of misuse are considerable. We cannot ignore the findings of a number of influential bodies which have studied the problems in detail. I point to the 1977 report of the Expenditure Committee on preventive medicine, which said that extreme caution should be taken before any change in the licensing hours was contemplated. The Advisory Committee on Alcoholism, another reputable body, also stressed the need for extreme caution.
I do not want to suggest, because it would not be the case, that we have closed the door on the possibility of future relaxations. In 1981 the Government issued a comprehensive document on alcohol misuse entitled

"Drinking Sensibly" to stimulate discussion and create a background of informed public opinion in the light of which Government strategies could be formulated.
We are also observing the effects of the extension of permitted hours in Scotland, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering the possibility of a new survey of the workings of Scottish legislation being undertaken next year. That would be an important step forward. With the benefit of seven years' experience of flexible hours in Scotland it will be possible to see whether they have resulted in any increase in alcohol abuse. If it could be proved that whatever the problems of alcoholism they are not affected one way or the other by opening hours, that would allow flexible hours to be proposed with confidence that they would not have harmful side effects. I hope my hon. Friend considers that that is encouragement. It is not to kick the ball into the long grass. It is an important step towards proving that the Government could contemplate change without fear that we should be adding to the grave problems of alcohol misuse.
I wish to comment briefly on the question of children being allowed in pubs. My hon. Friend was right to comment on the difficulties experienced by parents who find themselves unable to take their children into a bar. There are some limited circumstances in which children under 14 may be allowed into licensed premises. Quite apart from the danger that a relaxation in the present law could contribute to the general problem of alcohol misuse, we are not persuaded at present that proposals which would have the effect of making it easier for children to be in bars would be in the general public interest.
My hon. Friend also drew attention to private clubs and the National Union of Licensed Victuallers' proposal that private clubs should be treated as licensed premises. The requirement that club premises used for the supply of liquor should be registered, rather than licensed, takes into account their different status in law from public premises. The majority of clubs are run according to strict rules anii in the absence of any evidence to support the theory that they encourage or cause alcohol-related problems, I doubt whether the Government would be justified in disturbing the present arrangements.
I wish to conclude with a comment about occasional permissions, which have also been of anxiety to the licensed trade. The trade was worried by the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983. That Government-Supported private Member's Bill came into operation on 9 August this year. It enables an officer of an organisation which is not carried on for private gain to apply for an occasional permission authorising him to sell intoxicating liquor at a function in connection with the organisation's activities. Before that Act, alcohol could be sold lawfully to the public temporarily in normally unlicensed premises, only with the use of an occasional licence granted by justices of the peace to the holder of a justices' on-licence. The justices of the peace had to be satisfied that the sale of intoxicating liquor would be ancillary to the sale of substantial refreshment by the holder of a restaurant, or combined restaurant and residential, licence. The occasional permission is, in some circumstances, an alternative to the occasional licence. The 1983 Act contained safeguards designed to ensure that it did not exacerbate existing problems associated with excessive drinking.
The licensing justices to whom applications must be made have to satisfy themselves that an applicant for a permission is a fit and proper person to sell liquor, that the premises are suitable for the sale of liquor and that the sale is not likely to result in disturbance or annoyance to residents in the negihbourhood. A permission holder who fails to comply with the terms and conditions of his authorisation will be liable to criminal penalties. The Act limits the number of permissions that may be granted to any organisation or branch of an organisation to four in the course of a year, and a permission may permit the sale of intoxicating liquor for a period of 24 hours or less.
The effect of this is legitimise the activities of politicians in going to private homes and indulging in wine and cheese parties, which I should have thought was essential to the existence in one form or other of most political parties and a whole lot of charities. It seems a necessary step to permit that to be done within the framework of the law. I hope very much that the National Union of Licensed Victuallers and others recognise that in no sense was this intended to be, nor would it have had the consequence of being, any kind of body blow to the trade.
I have tried to cover as much ground as possible in the time available and, I hope that I have dealt with the various points made by both my hon. Friends. I am sorry that I cannot give them total satisfaction on this matter, but I hope that I have said enough to show that my mind is not closed. It is just that there are a number of points, and particularly a number of people and groups who sincerely hold diametrically opposite views which cannot just be pushed on one side on the evidence as we presently have it.
The debate has rightly centred on the sale of alcoholic drink as governed by the licensing legislation. Those laws do not set out to control the hours when liquor legally obtained may be consumed, whether in public or private. We should also remind ourselves that these laws do not apply in the precincts of the House, where I could even now, I imagine, repair to the bar to recover from having done three of these debates during the course of the night, and with the prospect of another one if my hon. Friends do not dilate at sufficient length until 9 o'clock this morning. We are not, therefore, subject to the prescribed permitted hours. Some outside the House would like to enjoy similar benefits. Others believe that the present provisions of the Licensing Act should be applied equally without exception. This is but a further example of the strands of controversy that run through any discussion of our liquor licensing laws and that have made Governments of different political complexions hesitate to make radical changes. My hon. Friend has performed a useful service in drawing our attention to this issue and pointing out what, in his view, needs to be done.

Africa (Aid)

Mr. Tony Baldry: This year the rains have failed in Africa, a continent where two-thirds of the world's poorest people scratch a living that is precarious at the best of times. Whole communities are on the move in search of the food that they are unable to grow for themselves, and in hunger people are eating their seed-corn.
The FAO estimates that more than 20 million people are facing starvation in Africa; and a number of countries such as Algeria and Morocco, although not on the desperation list, have appalling food shortages. The Save the Children Fund estimates that some 1 million people face immediate starvation in the area of Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Sudan, between 1·5 and 2 million face immediate starvation in the Sahel in the area of Upper Volta and northern Ghana, and about 1·5 million face immediate starvation in the south of the continent in Mozambique, Swaziland, Lesotho, Zimbabwe and Zambia. Ethiopia and the Sahel are areas, moreover, that never really recovered from the disastrous drought of 1973.
This year's disaster is partly the result of 20 years' agricultural decline in Africa that has left the continent at the mercy of every natural and man-made disaster.
Tragically, since 1960 the amount of food produced in Africa has increased by less than 2 per cent. a year, and the growth rate is falling, whereas during that time the population has increased by well over 2 per cent. a year, and the rate is increasing. Africa is now the only part of the world that grows less food for its people now than it did 20 years ago. The World Bank estimates that more than 60 per cent. of Africa's total population eats fewer calories each day than are required for a survival diet.
Even previously thriving agricultural countries such as Senegal and Kenya are now dependent on food imports, most of which must be received as aid, since they have no foreign exchange to pay for the imports. The FAO has appealed for 700,000 tonnes of urgent food aid, and estimates that next year Africa will need 3·2 million tonnes. So far, less than a quarter of that figure has been placed by FAO member Governments, and we are not that far away from next year.
Africa should be one of the great food-producing areas of the world. The tragedy is that Africa cannot feed itself, and it is in a worse position now than it was 20 years ago. Africa's agriculture seems to have collapsed. Moreover, drought causes not only immediate famine but the decimation of herds and the migration of people from the countryside to towns and across national boundaries in search of food and water. The drought was compounded by other recent disasters, such as a plague of rats in Senegal in 1976, smallpox in Somalia in 1977, floods in the Sudan in 1978 and cholera in Uganda in 1980. A continent that is in such a bad position is even less able to cope with added disasters.
The areas hardest hit by drought and famine also seem to be those areas of civil war and political unrest, which in turn means that there are now millions of political refugees seeking safety, food and shelter in parts of Africa other than their homes. Ethiopia — one of the areas hardest hit by famine—is most wrought up in the civil wars of Tigre and Welo. That tiny wedge of desert,


Djibouti, with almost no resources of its own, has had to accept about 30,000 refugees from Ethiopia and the civil war in the Ogaden.
The position in Africa is critical. What should be our response? A recent article in The Guardian on the Third world stated:
The West will need a new sense of political will if it is to help Africa contain its catastrophic food shortages.
I question the central premise in that statement. Why just the West? Does not the entire world need a new sense of political will to tackle Africa's seemingly inherent inability to produce enough food, and does not that world include Africa itself?
The attitude that it is the moral responsibility of the West alone to help Africa is largely responsible for generating antipathy in Britain and elsewhere to increasing our aid contribution. Recently Ethiopia's relief commissioner, Dawit Wolde Giorgis, visited London. We should remember that Ethiopia is fighting civil wars on several fronts, and is undoubtedly supported with arms and technical assistance by the Soviet Union. I have no doubt, from discussions in Addis Ababa, that much of Ethiopia's coffee crop— its prime crop — goes to the Soviets as payment for arms, as does a fair amount of its mineral resources.
I asked the commissioner when I met him last week how much food aid Ethiopia received from the Soviet Union. The tenor of his reply—I did not take it down verbatim — was that, as the Soviets had difficulty in feeding their people, it was unreasonable to expect them to feed the developing world. However, there is no reason why Russia or her Communist allies should be absolved from their responsibility to help to feed Africa, or why African states should be surprised if western Europe and Western democracies are hesitant about giving further aid to countries while there is a shadow of suspicion that the aid will be used either for political purposes or for buying more arms. I shall say a little more about Ethiopia in a moment.
Drought in Africa is a world problem and requires a world response. We as a nation must give humanitarian aid, but simply to say that there is a problem and that we must give more aid is, while perhaps understandable, none the less short sighted. If feeding Africa is a world problem, Africa is part of that world. There is much that Africa could do to help itself and to win greater confidence and support from the rest of the world.
There are many nomadic people in Africa who do not consider themselves as refugees, and who cross and recross borders to trade and visit relatives. There are also 5 million refugees in Africa who cannot help but exacerbate the feeding problems of the areas where they gather. They are almost all victims of the actions of various national Governments.
For example, Nigeria's decision in February this year to expel up to 2 million people created a local emergency of huge proportions. Thousands of people crammed into buses leaving Nigeria for Ghana. Overnight a crisis was created, with urgent demand for medical supplies and food. Those refugees appeared in Accra not because of had weather or a poor harvest, but simply because of the actions of an African Government.
One can understand Nigeria's concern at falling oil prices, but African nations cannot expect to act with callous indifference towards the well-being of others and

then wonder why people elsewhere increasingly question aid programmes. One would have hoped better of a nation such as Nigeria.
If Africa is to survive, every nation there must make efforts not to act to cause massive and urgent migrations of people. Frequently, refugees result not from the actions of Governments but from insurrections, civil war and outside influences. Insurrections and civil disorder may be a reflection of the fact that there are too many one-party states in Africa. One-party states mean one-party elections, and one-party elections mean no change of power through the ballot box. When elections offer no hope of change, coups are planned and civil wars begin. African nations could do much to make the continent more secure by making more possible unviolent and peaceful changes in government and democracy.
Nowadays, all too often, political and guerrilla warfare are supported and encouraged by neighbouring states. For example, only time will tell who is funding the Mozambican resistance movement, as it seems to be an organisation without territorial roots or political creed. The only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that it is intended by others simply to destabilise Mozambique.
Everyone in Africa has a vested interest in maintaining and promoting political stability. There should also be an interest in demonstrating confidence in that stability to the rest of the world. One way to do so is for a number of African states to try to establish better records on human rights.
For example, the revolution in Ethiopia took place in 1974. There are still up to 10 members of Haile Selassie's immediate family in captivity. I only wish that I and others could get through to the Ethiopian Government the fact that the very people who would be likely to argue their case for further food aid are often the same people who are particularly concerned about human rights. I recognise that the Ethiopian Government recently released some political prisoners, but when more opponents of the regime are being imprisoned, that does nothing to enhance the reputation of Ethiopia or other countries in Africa.
In a letter to The Guardian last week, the Minister said that there were difficulties in giving food aid. I suspect that he meant that it is almost impossible nowadays to give food aid without there being a number of inherent political value judgments. Giving bilateral food aid is all too often regarded as being a value judgment to the regime of the country to which it is sent. If only some African countries could realise that their long term political stability would be enhanced greatly by a better record and attitude towards human rights, they would do much better.
The political will of the rest of the world to help Africa depends to a large extent on the extent to which the African nations are prepared to maintain Western confidence and try to provide a stable political climate. To put it bluntly, it is not sufficient for any African country simply to say, "We have a serious problem", and expect Britain or Europe to help. Much can be done in Africa by Africa to limit the devastation of drought and national disasters
What can Britain and Europe do?
Only four countries give more by way of overseas aid than Britain—the United States, France, Germany and Japan, all of which have stronger economies than ours.
Britain helped to launch and later expand the United Nations Disaster Relief Office — UNDRO — and the Overseas Development Agency has had a disaster unit since 1974. Britain is fortunate in having five major


voluntary agencies—Oxfam, Christian Aid, the British Red Cross, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and the Save the Children Fund, all of which undertake invaluable voluntary work in drought affected areas which combine to form an effective disaster emergency committee.
I am not telling the Government that they are not doing enough. However critics might juggle the figures, despite the world recession and the need to control public spending, the aid programme has grown this year, albeit modestly. Our approach to overseas aid requires a slightly more sophisticated approach than the usual responses of "We are not giving enough" or, "We are giving too much".
We must consider two specific areas, to which I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself in reply, the first being disaster aid. Disasters happen throughout Africa, in countries some of whose regimes we like, question or would rather did not exist. Some critics allege that food aid is abused, that it does not get through to the relevant areas or it is given to the army. Endless rounds of rumour and counter-rumour exist, which is not surprising in those parts of Africa where armed conflict is occurring. I understand that it is embarrassing for any Government to be seen to be giving aid to any country which might be abusing it. The articles which appeard in The Sunday Times in July by Simon Winchester and by Peter Wilshire a few weeks ago are easy to write but difficult to disprove. Reliable information is often difficult to obtain. Members of our embassies are frequently limited as to where they can travel and in the information that they can send back to London.
The voluntary agencies, such as the Save the Children Fund and Oxfam, have reliable relief workers in the localities, able to make sensible judgments about food needs on humanitarian grounds. I appreciate that much of our aid to countries such as Ethiopia has gone through organisations such as the Save the Children Fund. I suggest that we channel as much of our aid as possible through the voluntary organisations in the disaster emergency committee. It will be able to make the best judgment for its use without involving the Government in difficult value judgments without the necessary information. One recognises that circumstances will exist where humanitarian aid will be urgently needed and that, by giving it through organisations such as the Save the Children Fund, we are demonstrating that we are giving humanitarian and no other form of aid.
This year's drought is not an aberration. As I mentioned earlier, Africa is the only part of the world that now grows less food for each of its people than 20 years ago. The important thing for Africa is help to improve its food production. There should be a major campaign to help it move towards greater self-sufficiency in foodstuffs, and to move the emphasis of development away from urban areas and back to the land. All too often Africa's townships are fed by imported food while the rural areas remain stuck with subsistence agriculture. What hope is there for Africa to feed itself in future?
More than half of the unused farmland in the world is in Africa. If it were all made to yield the best that could be obtained elsewhere on the same sort of soil, Africa could grow at least 100-fold more food than it grows now. Perhaps the greatest challenge about the present drought

in Africa is that it will spur us and the whole world to assist Africa to attempt to become self-sufficient in food during the next 20 years.
It may be quaint to see people threshing corn outside Addis Ababa in exactly the same way as they did in Biblical times, but it does not help feed the people of Africa. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to do all that he can to initiate an urgent programme to help Africa feed itself and move away from some of the high prestige projects that have become the toys of national Governments in Africa during the past 20 years.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Any scrutiny of the figures on British aid to Africa reveals that two countries have been especially favoured during the past two years — Gambia and Senegal. I rise simply to ask for an explanation of the favourable figures for aid to Gambia and Senegal.

Mr. Jim Lester: One of the glories of this place is that on a wet Tuesday morning we can move from talking about the problems of liquor licensing and excess liquor to the desperate shortage of such an essential commodity as water and the massive problems in Africa. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for introducing the subject.
It is relevant at Christmas, as we look forward to a festive season with drink and good food — we could describe it as a time of excess—to think seriously about the facts given by my hon. Friend about the millions of people under threat in Africa. It is difficult to conceive of anything that contrasts more greatly than the provision of plenty in our country and the threat of starvation to millions in Africa. I do not doubt that it is right that we should debate this subject. It is one of the glories of this place that we can do so— provided that it results in something effective being done.
On 5 December my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development answered a question about the Government's response to the drought in Africa. He made it clear that this country was providing food aid worth £5·7 million to Mozambique, Ghana and Ethiopia and that we were doing all that we could to speed up delivery of our food aid. He said that we have given another £1·4 million as disaster aid to a number of countries, and also contributed to the EC's food aid programme.
I welcome that response to my question. What is the European Community likely to do? What is the response to the Food and Agriculture Organisation target which aims to meet the needs of African people? My fundamental worry, which is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, is that we barely meet present needs and we may not meet the circumstances that threaten. We in the West are trying to provide a form of first-aid through these programmes. We are trying to stem the initial risks, but we are a long way from tackling the basic problem which my hon. Friend mentioned in his excellent speech.
The infant mortality rate is accepted internationally to assess the difficulties facing Africa and the developing world. Only last week, the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund put out its programme "The State of the World's Children 1984". In table 14 on page


13, UNICEF described the countries that are unlikely to reach the target of 50 infant deaths per thousand live births by the year 2000, which is quite a long way in the future. Each of the countries mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury are in that table which shows infant mortality rates for African countries of more than 100, or even more than 150, infant deaths per thousand live births. One of the lowest rates is 84 infant deaths per thousand live births. Virtually every African country is mentioned in that table. Despite what we can do in the short-term, agencies such as UNICEF see the problem continuing past the end of the century. That is the basis on which we should consider our actions and thoughts.
One of the first-aid suggestions pioneered by UNICEF has been oral rehydration therapy. Last year, at the United Nations I first heard of that development in the statement on "The State of the World's Children 1983", and that was the impetus for an action that I undertook in my area. I believe that that action fits in to the long-term problem about which we have been talking.
Oral rehydration therapy is the provision of a simple formula of salts that prevents any person, but especially a child, from dying of dehydration. The cost of providing that formula is about 5 cents a pack. Much of that money goes towards providing the sealant and the unit by which the salts can be preserved from the effects of weather. Five cents can save a life, and so spending that small amount of money can result in a considerable reward.
We in the east midlands chose to launch a scheme to raise £25,000 between Easter and Whitsuntide to provide half a million packs for use in the Sudan. especially the drought-stricken areas in the south, to deal particularly with the refugee problem caused by the draught and the civil war. There are more than 750,000 refugees in that country. The scheme was launched by using the BBC Nottingham programme "Afternoon Special" which was beamed out to the four counties of Lincoln. Derby, Leicester and Nottingham. We began with some trepidation at the idea of appealing for that kind of money in that way, but to our amazement a simple description of the plight of that part of the world and the realisation by listeners that a contribution of 5p would provide a pack of medicine that would save a life brought in not £25,000 but £42,000.
In August this year the first batch of 1 million sachets of salts was flown to the Sudan. Since then, I have received telexes from the Sudan and the new ambassador came to Nottingham last week to put on the lights on a Christmas tree in one of our local hospitals as a gesture of recognition of the contribution of the people of the east midlands to solving the problems of his country. It is estimated that that contribution will save about 18,000 lives. That shows what can be done.
In considering infant mortality rates until the year 2000 we should also look back and recall that in 1906 in Birmingham, the heart of the west midlands, infant mortality was more than 200 per thousand—higher than in almost any country in the world today. The proposed target is therefore perfectly realistic and attainable. To bring the figures down, preferably before the year 2000, I wish to propose a series of actions.
First, agencies such as UNICEF have the same kind of contact on the ground as the voluntary agencies that we all support. They see the challenge now as political rather than technical—the need to motivate people to take the necessary basic steps in their own countries. Our

contribution to UNICEF has not changed in the past two years. Schemes such as the one that I have described show that there is immediate assistance to which we could contribute both through the Government and by voluntary action. UNICEF estimates that it could distribute about 1 billion sachets of oral rehydration salts world wide. Last year it distributed 80 million and it is a source of considerable pride to me that the east midlands provided one eightieth of the total—1 million sachets. If the east midlands can make that kind of contribution almost by accident, I am sure that other Members, other voluntary agencies and other forms of direct link could achieve similar targets and help to provide this vital basic medicine.
Secondly, we must develop our food aid programme. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury that this form of aid must be used circumspectly as it may prevent people from growing their own food rather than encourage them to do so, although the situation in many parts of Africa at present makes that a secondary consideration. I know from personal experience the great difficulty that the agencies experience in calculating the quantities required and the transport needed to move those quantities to the areas where they are needed. Because of civil war and the movement of refugees, even the best organised Governments find that between making the calculations and getting the food moved many thousands of miles, another 9,000 refugees have moved into the area concerned. We must work on the co-ordination of food aid and getting it to the key areas at the right time.
We must also develop our effective use of the voluntary agencies which are politically acceptable. They tend to work more directly with isolated communities and with people. Much of the problem with aid programmes is that they are conducted between Governments, and not all Governments share the priorities that have been described in the House. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent Overseas Development Aid book and the figures it provides. It is a milestone in Government publications. Much Government aid is wasted as it goes to things other than what we would want.
We should also encourage a more direct link between people. As a result of what we did in the east midlands. we received letters from people in the Sudan requesting: books and magazines to help with the teaching of English. They were requested for schools that had literally nothing —not even pencils—and yet people there were trying to teach English. We were able to provide books and magazines at short notice and they were flown in. Much of the problem is transport and its cost. The Government could give a lead to voluntary agencies to make links and to see what needs to be provided immediately. Such aid could be given free provided that the Government or the agencies undertook to provide transport.
Direct links between people can be used to get to the problems of drought and defoliation which is caused by simple people continuing to burn more and more wood, cutting down ever more trees, thus creating erosion of the soil which causes weather changes which cause drought. In the Sudan, there is a scheme to plant the gum tree which produces gum arabic as it has been developed in Israel and Australia as a means of stopping defoliation and the expansion of desert. Perhaps young people in Britain who are interested in trees will provide the trees and go and plant them, so linking themselves with communities in different countries and creating personal links.
My plea is that in addition to my right hon. Friend's immense responsibilities in overseas development, in addition to the work that he is trying to do between Governments through Europe and world agencies and in addition to his encouragement of private investment, he should encourage personal investment between communities, especially in Africa, to deal with the problems that have been described. I can think of no cause which would do more to motivate people to be involved.
Many matters which concern the headlines and the public get out of perspective. One of the figures that I heard only last week affected me deeply, in view of all the campaigning that we see here on cruise missiles. Every day, world-wide, 50,000 children die of something that we can cure—malnutrition, and conditions and complications following that disease. Every three days 150,000 children die, and that is about as many people as died, tragically, when the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. When we think of the concern about the nuclear weapons and the worry about a situation that is most unlikely to occur, and compare that to 150,000 children dying from something about which we can do something, that should be a spur to us all.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for raising this topic today, and one could hardly have a more appropriate topic to raise just before Christmas. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who has spoken so movingly, illuminated a problem which is obviously of profound importance—literally a matter of life or death. We have heard the figures of just how many people for whom it is a matter of life or death.
There is widespread concern here about the suffering that has been caused by the drought in Africa. Much help has been given by the voluntary agencies, and we in the Government have also been active. I am glad to have this chance to say something about what the Government have been doing and about how our efforts fit into those of the wider international community.
The debate is peculiarly timely, because it is near to Christmas, and because a new cycle of rain has started that may lead to some improvement. It also poses the question of what should be done if the rains should prove inadequate. There is a serious humanitarian problem here, as my hon. Friends have said. I assure them that the Government will continue to work to alleviate it, in partnership with other donars and the African countries themselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, they, too, have to face their responsibilities.
This is clearly a deep-seated problem, and I should like to set it in its context. Parts of western and central Africa can normally count on abundant rain, but there are large tracts of the Sahel and of eastern and southern Africa where the failure of the rains has always been a hazard. In recent years the food situation in many of these arid and semi-arid countries has become more difficult. for reasons which I shall explain. Moreover, the lack of rain over the last two years has been such that some regions where rainfall is normally sufficient have been as hard hit as the traditionally drought-prone areas. Quite apart from the

drought, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, food production in many African countries has not kept pace with population growth. Plant and animal diseases and losses of grain in storage have cut into food supplies and so have outbreaks of fire. Migrations and the movement of refugees have meant more mouths to feed. The lack of vehicles and adequate roads has made it difficult to move food from surplus areas into deficit ones and the problem of transport is an important part of the picture.
Against that background, the drought has had very severe effects in some countries, while others have escaped lightly. This is partly due to the patchy nature of last season's rains, and partly to the fact that some countries have been better placed than others to withstand the effects of the drought. Ghana and Chad have been very badly affected, and so has much of Ethiopia. In southern Africa, Mozambique has been particularly hard hit, and Botswana, Lesotho, Zambia and Zimbabwe have also suffered. Malawi. on the other hand, has happily had good harvests.
Given that drought is a recurrent problem across so much of Africa, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that tackling its root causes is no less important than taking immediate relief measures. Unfortunately, we cannot control the weather, at any rate on the scale that would be necessary, but much can be done to help the African countries to increase their own food production and to make better use of what they already grow. The potential is there. Improving the productivity of agriculture is one of the central objectives of our own aid programmes. Our aid to Africa last year in the field of renewable natural resources was about £40 million, which is a very substantial sum.
However, the problem of food shortages in Africa is far too big for a single donor, such as the United Kingdom, to tackle on its own. In any case, it depends in large part on the policies of the African Governments themselves. I am glad to say that the wider internatinal community has been giving the problem the attention that it deserves. The World Bank and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation have each been active in diagnosing the causes, discussing them with the African countries, and pointing out the appropriate solutions.
The World Bank's concern has been chiefly with the underlying economic causes. The bank has drawn attention to some shortcomings in the policies of many African Governments, in particular. the lack of incentives to farmers and the inefficiency of many of the parastatal bodies which handle marketing and distribution.
It has rightly fallen to the FAO to take a more direct initiative. In the past two months the Director-General has convened two special meetings to focus on the needs of the many countries which are affected. I was able to attend one of those meetings myself, when I was in Rome for the FAO general conference. I was impressed by what FAO had been doing to identify the food gap and to encourage African Governments to improve their food strategies for the longer term. I was able to tell the other Ministers at the meeting of our own response to the crises, and I undertook that we would do our best to speed up the delivery of the aid already promised.
The Director-General has subsequently written to express his appreciation of what he termed
the positive and encouraging response from a number of participating countries.


I also made our concern clear in my address to the FAO general conference itself; and we supported the resolution which the conference passed calling for a continued effort by donor and African Governments alike.
There is also the European Community. For many years now the Community has supplied food aid to Africa, and its programmes in this field are extensive. I am sure that my hon. Friends will want me to say something about food aid, whether from the Community or direct from Britain.
Let me put it on record, then, that the European Community has made food aid allocations totalling £50 million to 24 drought-stricken African countries, and £4·8 million has been specifically provided as drought relief. A total of £50 million worth of food for the drought affected countries is a substantial sum, and I need not remind the House that over a fifth of it comes from Britain. The Community is currently considering further allocations.
While we shall continue to support the European Community's efforts to bring practical help to the drought-affected countries, our judgment has been that some of them need additional food aid. We have, therefore, offered them such aid direct from Britain, as part of our own bilateral food aid programme. We allocated 80,000 tonnes of food aid to Africa in 1982–83, and that has now been supplemented by new allocations to Mozambique, to which we have allocated 11,500 tonnes, and Ghana, to which we have allocated 17,000 tonnes. The total value of that purely British food aid is £13·3 million.
I should add that we are not taking the attitude that once we have pledged such-and-such an amount of food aid we have done our hit. We are well aware of the importance of ensuring that the aid reaches the people who need it with the least delay. While we recognise that there are various procedures to be followed, and that physical bottlenecks can also cause delays, we support the view of the Director-General of the FAO that the more that can be done to speed up such aid, the better.
Apart from food aid, we have another string to our bow in the shape of aid for disaster relief. We would much prefer to prevent emergencies from occurring than to cope with their effects, but we have the ability to provide special help where it is needed.
The emergency assistance that we have given for drought relief comes to some £1·4 million. Over half of this has been allocated to Ethiopia, about which I shall say a little more later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury asked whether the food aid gets through, and there has been much talk about that. We certainly do our best to find out, and so does the European Community. It is not always easy. We also keep in close touch with the voluntary agencies and we use those agencies as much as possible to handle emergency disaster aid, notably in Ethiopia, where all the aid goes through voluntary agencies or the United Nations disaster relief office.
As I have already said, many activities under our normal aid programmes are aimed at countering the effects of low rainfall and other constraints on food supplies. I said that about £40 million was the overall total of our aid to Africa last year in the agriculture and natural resources sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, it is vital to understand that the development of agriculture is the real priority in Africa.
I wish that I had time to do justice to the effort within that total aid that goes specifically towards improving

water resources, breeding drought-resistant varieties of crops, and tackling post-harvest losses. To mention a few examples, we are funding irrigation projects in Zambia and Zimbabwe; we are helping to survey underground water resources in Botswana; we are constructing grain stores in Kenya, Tanzania and elsewhere: and we are providing experts and equipment to combat the greater grain borer in Tanzania—a pest which causes extensive damage to harvested grains. All these are examples of assistance provided under our regular aid programmes and of tackling a fundamental problem.
We are very conscious of the severe difficulties facing Ethiopia as a result of continuing drought and security problems in the northern provinces. We have done a good deal this year to help Ethiopia. We have provided 19,000 tonnes of United Kingdom food aid costing nearly £3 million, as well as our share—worth £1½ million—of European Community food aid to that country. Quite apart from that, we have contributed more in disaster relief in 1983 to Ethiopian victims of the drought than to any other drought-affected country in Africa. I hope that this will go some way towards allaying any fears that our relief aid is heavily influenced by political factors. That is not so, although there are other ways in which we have to express our concern about human rights and political situations in countries such as Ethiopia.
We are very concerned by reports of continuing port congestion which prevents the prompt unloading and distribution of vital relief supplies. I voiced our concern to the Ethiopian Commissioner for Relief and Rehabilitation, Atu Dawit Wolde-Giorgis, when he was in London recently, and I urged him to give priority to clearing relief supplies through the ports. I am sure that the House will have noticed what my hon. Friend said about the role of Russia and the Communist bloc and their pathetic showing in providing real aid to Africa.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made some interesting remarks about the appalling problem of infant mortality. He talked of oral rehydration techniques and the encouraging effects that they have had in reducing child mortality. He talked about the special concentration by UNICEF, which is widely admired. He also spoke of the remarkable enterprise in which he has been engaged in the east midlands. I congratulate him on the way in which that is being carried out.
The problem of oral rehydration is in a sense separate from that of hunger, since many of the diarrhoea) diseases which kill children in the developing countries are due to infections rather than malnutrition. I accept, however, that the same deprivation and poverty cause conditions in which such disorders flourish. I am glad, therefore, that my hon. Friend has brought to the notice of the House the significant impact which oral rehydration therapy can have on mortality. I am also glad that British scientists were prominent in the research into the physiological basis of this kind of therapy. I am pleased, too, that we are able to contribute, to the extent of over £100,000 a year, to the work of the international centre for diarrhoea) disease research in Bangladesh.
We support UNICEF's initiative in publicising the potential benefits of a package of low-cost measures to curb infant mortality and we are among the largest contributors to the fund's resources. We recently pledged a contribution of £6 million in 1984, which is at the same level as in the current year.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked one of his sharp and specific questions, which I shall answer. He asked about our aid to Gambia and Senegal and asked why they were, in his words, so large. Our largest aid programmes in Africa go to other countries — Sudan, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi and Tanzania, but we provide fairly large aid to the Gambia in terms of its population. This is because, like other small countries in the Commonwealth with which we have good relations, it has basic needs for its infrastructure and manpower which it cannot supply itself. I have had more than one meeting with Gambian Ministers and have known Gambians over many years, and I feel, as many other people in this country do, that Gambia is one of those countries where help from us is of great value. We would be very sad not to be able to come to the help of a country which has such good relations with us.
Aid to Senegal is fairly small and is mainly concentrated on English teaching. Indeed, in a number of the francophone countries the spread of the English language is the emphasis that we are following, but we have offered about £3 million which we hope will be used to boost village water supplies and so help fight the problems of drought which we are debating.
Meanwhile, as I have said, what should be the rainy season is now in progress over much of Africa. In west Africa the 1983 rainy season ended in October. The FAO reports that river levels remain low and that crops have received insufficient rain in northern Ghana and other areas. Seasonal rains have started in southern Africa, but soil moisture reserves have been seriously depleted and it is still too early to assess the prospects for 1984. We shall, however, continue to watch the situation closely and to study reports from the FAO, our own diplomatic posts, and other sources. Should there be any risk of the drought going into a third year, the consequences could indeed be grave.
I hope that the situation will become clearer over the next few weeks. Apart from assessing the effects of the current rains, we shall know more about the European Community's plans for additional food aid, and will consider allocations from our bilateral food aid programmes for 1984.
I also hope that we shall be able to sit down soon with the main voluntary agencies, share our information with them and reach at any rate provisional conclusions on what the extent of the needs may be in the coming year.
These are all matters which my Department will be following up during January. I can promise my hon. Friend that we shall not just fold our arms and hope for the best. There is far too much at stake in terms of human suffering. Relieving hunger is not, of course, an exact science, and there must always be an element of guesswork about how large any particular food shortage is and exactly what measure of outside assistance may be required. But I hope I have said enough to convince the House that the Government have been acting purposefully, within the limits of their resources, to help to relieve this disturbing problem, and that our action will continue in the same humanitarian spirit.

Foreign Policy (Caribbean)

Mr. Bowen Wells: I find myself in the familiar position of trying to compress a 30-minute speech into five minutes, but I shall do my best.
My main concern in introducing this subject for debate is that I believe that there is a profound problem with Britain's foreign policy in the Caribbean. The British Government think—they have said so in the paper in reply to the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—that they regard the Caribbean as an important area and one in which they are putting a great deal of aid and assistance, and they can demonstrate that that is so.
By contrast, each of the countries that the Select Committee visited only about 18 months ago declared that Britain was not doing enough, was disengaging from the area and did not care enough about what was happening in the Caribbean — that, in short, Britain was withdrawing. I fear that there is a consistency in Britain's foreign policy in this area which unfortunately I do not welcome. It is a consistency that led Her Majesty's Government into the mistakes that they made over the question of Grenada after the revolution and the killing of Prime Minister Bishop. There does not seem to be a close enough realisation by the British Government of the feelings, ideas, ambitions and problems of those in the Caribbean.
The British Government are not reacting to those aspirations and problems. Indeed, the only person who reacted prompty to the Select Committee's concern was Her Majesty the Queen, who, on receipt of the knowledge that Jamaica felt itself isolated from the Head of the Commonwealth, paid a visit to that country within a short time. I am afraid that the reaction of the British Government was not so prompt or effective.
I am concerned because the British position in the Caribbean is not only regarded by every Caribbean Government with whom I have been in contact as deteriorating and most unsatisfactory but reveals a failure on the diplomatic front. Along with that diplomatic failure there has been a commercial failure, plus a failure on our part to support our ally, the United States, whose backyard this is. We have a special knowledge of the Commonwealth Caribbean and therefore we have an important part to play in helping the Americans to ensure that this area does not lapse into offensive Administrations who do not support the United States or, indeed, are antagonistic to it. We shall fail if we do not make certain to the best of our ability that such an offensive regime does not arise.
There is, therefore, a feeling that the reply to the Select Committee's report indicates that Britain is self-satisfied with what it is doing and that no real changes are needed. Yet we had the speech of Prime Minister Adams at the Royal Commonwealth Society in which he said that the Grenada crisis and Britain's failure to react in support of democratic countries in the Commonwealth Caribbean represented a watershed in relationships between the British Caribbean and Britain, that the United States was taking over in the vacuum left by Britain and that Britain was sinking in the west with the sunset.
I do not want to go into the whole issue—as I had hoped to do — of the conditions that we found in revolutionary Grenada, the fear and human rights


problems, with people being locked up in prison for many years without trial, and the fact that we do not seem to have appreciated the way in which that country was becoming a military base, with young people being indoctrinated and trained militarily and the presence of a movement towards establishing an outright Communist state.
We had a British representative in that island, but when we visited it, he had not met any of the Ministers of the People's Revolutionary Government during the 18 months he had been there. He was replaced, but what sort of information was being sent back by his successor, in view of the attitude of the British Government when the crisis occurred?
I come to the post-revolutionary situation, bearing in mind that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that she wishes to do everything in her power to assist the return of a democratically elected Government in Grenada. We appear to be carrying on in the same self-satisfied way; waiting for initiatives to be taken by others; waiting for the Americans to do the job that we should be doing; waiting for some initiatives to come from a Government in Grenada who are hardly established and who need major assistance in administrative terms, even to the extent of writing letters requesting the assistance that they need.
What are the Government doing about Plessey's contract at the airport? Do we intend to support Plessey over that contract? What are we doing about regenerating the water supply? This morning I received a reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, telling me what is to be done with the £750,000. I am grateful for his reply, and in particular for the information about the support of the electricity supply, which was British-supplied and British-engineered. If we wait for the Americans to take action, there will be American equipment and American supplies on the island.
We must do something to support the economy of Grenada, not just with reference to power supplies, roads, water, the airport and the hospitals—all of which could provide orders for our country — but also in the marketing of bananas, nutmeg and cocoa and the regeneration of those industries.
I have received a Christmas card from one of my very good friends in Grenada. What she wrote on it shows why I am concerned about the British Government's lack of reaction to the situation there. She says:
We all here (official estimate of at least 90% of the population) are so pleased &amp; relieved that the U.S. troops are here—having rescued us just in time from having our dear Grenada turned into a communist state when I and thousands of others were to have been 'eliminated' and our properties seized —so many of us feel &amp; say after God is Reagan. God bless him! We wish they would never go!

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The importance of this debate is in inverse proportion to the time available, and I hope that the usual channels, the Government or perhaps a private Member will give us another opportunity at some stage to debate this important matter.
I heartily associate myself with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) in his view of the Government's response. With him, I visited Grenada in March 1982. Our report—HC 47, Session 1981–82— and the Government's reply—Cmnd. 8819—show how little concerned the Government have been to take

initiatives in this area. Despite the events of the past few weeks in the Caribbean, it appears that the Government are not changing their policy—a policy of low profile and doing, apparently, as little as possible.
As a result of the American activity in Grenada—whether we regard it as invasion or liberation—there has been a split in the British Caribbean between those who supported that action and those who criticised it. There is therefore a new situation in there. When the United Kingdom does little, it does little in rew and dangerous circumstances — circumstances where we ought to try to heal, although that will leave scars.
The Government seem to have done little since the invasion to respond positively. Somebody who returned from Grenada recently has said that the Grenaclians understand that Britain is not the economic power that it once was, and that we have our own economic difficulties. But apparently we have not even sent them a second-hand Leyland lorry.
We must show much more concern for that island than we have shown in the past. When the House gave Grenada independence in 1971 or 1972, it did so with questionable moral authority. It now has an opportunity to show greater concern for the people of that island, who deserve better of the House and the United Kingdom.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have both said that the Government have not done enough for the Caribbean and for Grenada in particular. They spoke of a lack of understanding and of reaction and said that they were awaiting initiatives, which were not forthcoming.
The Government have repeatedly stressed the importance to the United Kingdom of the Caribbean region. We appreciate our links with it. Our policy towards the region was stated clearly to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in November 1982 and reiterated in March 1983. It is to maintain and promote good relations with those countries, and to help them to the best of our ability to develop economically and maintain a peaceful environment. That is exactly what we have been doing.
Nothing that has happened in the region, either before or subsequent to recent events in Grenada, has led us to believe that our policy needs to be recast. I shall not talk about the depth of our links or the contacts that we all have. My fellow Ministers and I visit the Caribbean frequently. We see many representatives from there as they come to London. I believe that, although there have been difficulties about the size of our diplomatic establishment, we receive good service and are well informed about what goes on there. We have the greatest interest in that part of the world.
For many years, we have been a major bilateral aid donor to the Commonwealth Caribbean. The Government are fully aware that many countries in the region have for some time been suffering economic difficulties. The present level of direct British assistance is about £25 million per year. In relation to the size of their populations and their per capita income levels, that is a substantial contribution. Other multilateral and bilateral organisations contribute also. We are emphatically playing our part. That applies to the Caribbean's relationship to the Lomé convention, which is of great importance and which is


being renegotiated. We have made it clear that we will continue to do all that we can for the Caribbean region — banana producers and others — during the negotiations.
I believe that our record has been good. Recent events in Grenada have highlighted a wide problem — the vulnerability of some small states to extremism and domination by small groups of evil and determined men. That was recognised first in the House and then by the recent Commonwealth conference. A number of eastern Caribbean states have already set up a regional security system and we have helped in that.
We have further helped in Barbados and St. Vincent with the provision of a coastguard service. For many years we have given important help with policing in the Caribbean. I recently visited the regional police training college in Barbados. It is of great importance and I am sure that the experience generated there will be of value in Grenada.
The Interim Advisory Council established by the Governor-General's proclamation on 15 November now has a firm grip. Mr. Braithwaite, who is its chairman, confirmed in an important radio interview that it had assumed the role of an interim Government and that the Governor-General will now revert to his position as titular Head of State.
I must stress that we are helping. Financial arrangements are being made by the Interim Advisory Council. The distinguished president of the Caribbean Development Bank is to act as economic consultant. A new police commissioner and deputy have already assumed duties. A new superintendent of prisons has been appointed. Other important decisions are being made.
Grenada will need assistance, and we have made clear our readiness to respond sympathetically to requests from the interim Administration. As the House is aware, I announced on 28 November that we would provide £750,000 on grant terms to help immediate needs, mainly in police training, advice and equipment, and economic and social infrastructure.
It has already been agreed that Mr. Brian Graves will take up a one-year appointment as police adviser. The building up of the Grenadian police force is obviously an essential task, and Mr. Graves will play an important part in it. The advisory council has now agreed on a package of projects drawn up after advice from our British development division in the Caribbean, and again I stress that the development division has very close contact with Grenada and a very full understanding of the needs there. It will be important for law and order to be maintained in the period of the run-up to the elections which will take place in due course.
I think it is a remarkable feat that the Americans have been able to withdraw their combat forces before Christmas. We understand that active discussions are in train about setting up a Caribbean peacekeeping force along the lines of—

It being Nine o'clock on Tuesday morning, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

South Sefton Area Health Authority

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

9 am

Mr. Allan Roberts: The South Sefton area health authority, which covers my constituency, lies within the same regional health authority as does Liverpool — the Merseyside regional health authority which recently instructed all its area health authorities to make cuts in services and health provision throughout Merseyside.
On 9 November 1983 the House debated the cuts being imposed through the Liverpool area health authority when my hon. Friends who represented the people of the city of Liverpool pointed out the devastation that was taking place in their area.
My constituents in Bootle, Litherland, Seaforth and Waterloo and the remainder of those who live in the area covered by the South Sefton area health authority are hit not only by the cuts being imposed by what seems to be their area health authority, South Sefton, but by those made by the Liverpool area health authority where the Newsuan general hospital is being run down and will be closed, Princes Park hospital is to lose 100 beds for the elderly, 24 beds are to go at Alderhey children's hospital and the St. Paul's eye hospital will close a ward, despite its long list of about 600 patients awaiting eye treatment. The catchment area of this and the other Liverpool hospitals suffering cuts, run-downs and closures is the whole of Merseyside. These cuts hit South Sefton, including my Bootle constituency, as well as Liverpool. On top of these cuts in the city centre hospitals and health service, there are imposed on the people of South Sefton the cuts of the South Sefton area health authority. These are tragic, and in some cases devastating. They are made against the background of central Government cuts in the total Health Service budget, the Government's hidden manifesto which they denied at the general election but which is now being revealed step by step, stage by stage.
I have here the consequences of the cuts being imposed by the Government on the South Sefton area. The fateful meeting of the South Sefton area health authority which considered and implemented these cuts took place on 28 October this year. I remember it well. It was my fortieth birthday, and the meeting provided me with a rather tragic birthday present. I have here the report that was considered. It is printed on pink rather than blue paper. The report to the South Sefton area health authority said:
When the allocations for the current year were announced in February, 1983, we received no additional funding for growth … This meant we had to reduce our expenditure by £637,000 in 1983–84, and the Authority's approved economy package reflected this position. In that economy package we looked for savings on revenue account of £637,000 in 1983–84 to be followed by savings of £865,000 in 1984–85. Following the Chancellor's statement in July, the Authority produced an Action Plan which gave substance to a further saving of £496,000 in the financial year ended 31st March, 1984. That is a total saving of £1,133,000 in all in 1983–84. The Secretary of State also announced manpower reductions, and in this financial year we need to shed 87 whole time "equivalent posts … The District Management Team are, therefore, monitoring manpower for three main reasons:
(a) To meet the figure of 87 as above"—
those were staff cuts—
(b) To observe the vacancy control requirement derived from the the economy package".


That is a euphemism for not filling vacancies that may arise, including nursing vacancies. In continues,
(c) To assist the District Nursing Officer with her overspending on nursing posts in the General Division at Fazakerley hospital.
There was great anxiety at Fazakerley hospital about that, because it will mean a reduction in nurses in that already under-staffed hospital.
Those were the proposals and the figures before the South Sefton area health authority meeting on 28 October. The authority took several decisions, including cuts in gardening at hospitals, especially Fazakerley; cuts in boiler house staffing in hospitals; reduced stocks of medical and surgical equipment; at Walton hospital, which serves our area, a withdrawal of night attendents at the residence; and cuts in administration cover. The authority decided to review patients' feeding menus, which meant that patients would not get the proper food that is so essential in the nursing care process. At Fazakerley hospital, cuts were proposed in catering and domestic services, so that standards of food and hygiene will deteriorate. There will be reductions in porters. Instead of the porters taking patients round the hospitals, and to the operating theatres, patients will now be left lying around for much longer. There will be administrative cuts in the community units and a withdrawal of the caretaker at the clinic.
Even more serious are the compulsory redundancies to achieve a reduction in staff of 87, which will start on 31 December 1983—a strange Christmas present to those in need of health care in that area. Waterloo hospital is to close, which is probably the greatest cut in the area. It is a small, family hospital that is regarded in the entire area as a caring community facility. It provides a minor injuries unit, chest clinic, X-ray service, renal dialysis unit, community haematology, and chiropody and physiotherapy services. It is a local district nursing base, and a centre for hearing aids. All those community-based services will be closed or transferred away from the local community. A massive campaign is being mounted, not least by Bootle and Crosby Labour parties, which has received the support of the whole community. A massive petition has been organised, and demonstrations and packed protest meetings have taken and will continue to take, place to oppose this tragic closure.
We are told that the building will be retained. A letter that I received stated that
the future of the hospital will be reviewed when it has been closed.
What nonsense Ministers and the area health authority talk. Surely they do not expect the local people to fall for that one. They realise that, once Waterloo hospital closes, it is highly unlikely ever to be reopened, especially if this Government are in power.
Who is sitting on this non-democratically elected area health authority, and taking the decisions on cuts in the Health Service? One member of the board is the partner of a doctor who owns a private nursing home at 57 Albert road, Southport. It is registered in his wife's name, Mrs. Niadoo. People such as that doctor have a vested interest in cuts in state provision, and on all the evidence provide sub-standard care, are involved in making undemocratic decisions and in pushing through cuts. The cuts are partly implemented. on the Government's admission, to defend the private sector.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): The hon. Gentleman is making serious allegations about the conduct of one member of the district health authority. He alleges that that person provides sub-standard care. I hope that he is prepared to repeat those allegations outside the House.

Mr. Roberts: There is an investigation into the home to which I referred. I am sure that the evidence will be brought to the attention of the Minister in due course.
The Government have a vested interest in the private sector. Even people on the boards of area and regional health authorities are trying to destroy our National Health Service so that the private sector can develop. However, they will never destroy it completely, because the private sector feeds on the Health Service. Consultants and others will always favour certain cuts, but want the NHS as they have a vested interest in waiting lists at state hospitals. People pay to see consultants— not to get better care, but to jump the queue.
The people of south Sefton suffer twice, because of the cuts imposed on them by the Government through the area health authority and because there is the meanest Tory council in the country in Sefton. It is cutting community health and social service care. I shall give some examples of services that are being destroyed in our area, or which are hardly meeting current need. I took up with the St. Helens and Knowsley health authority a constituent's problem, and received a letter from the chairman, in which he said:
It is indeed desirable for your constituent to be provided with day care when he is out of hospital. Unfortunately, there are no local authority day places available for the mentally ill in the South Sefton Health District. This deficiency has been brought to the attention of the South Sefton Health Authority and to the Director of Social Services for Sefton by the Psychiatric Div:sion of Walton and Fazakerley hospitals, but to date it has not been possible to remedy the situation.
That is a glaring example of a massive gap in provision, which should be filled, and cuts should not be imposed. I received a telling letter from
four speech therapists, working on Merseyside, appealing to you for help.
In 1972 a government report (Quirk) recommended that South Sefton Health District should have fourteen speech therapists On 1st December 1983 we will have only three full-time posts. With this provision we are supposed to cover Walton and Fazakerley General Hospitals, five schools for the mentally and physically handicapped, three units for children with learning difficulties, two training centres for the mentally handicapped adult, and evening group plus eleven health clinics and a domiciliary service. In these settings we alone assess, diagnose and treat all disorders of human communication in both adults and children.
In our district there are children failing at school and adults who will never speak again because we are unable to provide a service which meets the needs of this community. Without speech therapy, patients with severe speech and language disorders will never be able to participate fully in society.
I received a letter from an elderly gentleman, Mr. Atkins of 11 Park avenue in Crosby, saying:
I doubt whether you will know a great deal about this subject. I didn't either until I needed the service. I am nearly 78 years old, and suffer from arthritis and poor sight. Action is needed right away by caring people, not in three years but in three months.
Mr. Atkins talks about the chiropody service at the Thornton health clinic in Bretland road, which appears to be being deliberately run down. It has been hopelessly undermanned for years, with patients having to wait three months between visits. He graphically illustrates the difficulties faced by the elderly in my constituency and in


the area round south Sefton and Merseyside, who are trying to get a chiropody service. It is inadequately staffed and in dire need of help and assistance.
I received a letter from another constituent, Mr. Peter Boyle of 22 Gardner avenue, Bootle, who says:
As one of your constituents and a supporter of your re-election"—
that is nice to hear—
 … I should be grateful if you would use your position to make known the disgraceful state of affairs, as a result of a shortage of money at Clatterbridge hospital, Wirral, Merseyside. The situation was brought to my attention by a close relative who is currently a patient there.
As you know, much of the work carried out at the hospital depends on the use of X-ray equipment for the treatment for cancer patients. Radiographers and other staff are frustrated by constant breakdowns of dated equipment and patients are kept waiting for hours on end for a treatment which itself takes only minutes. Some wait from early morning, with little to pass the time, until late at night, and staff work through the night to get machines working and complete the day's quota of treatments. There is no over-time paid, just time off in lieu, which some never take because of staff shortages and dedication to the patients.
is hospital needs is new, modern equipment now, so that it can continue the wonderful work it has carried out in the past. For many cancer sufferers in the north-west it represents the only chance of prolonging their lives. What better reason for public expenditure.
What better justification could there be for the arguments put forward by the Opposition against cuts in the Health Service.
What has been the reaction of the Crosby constituency Liberals to our campaign against the closure of Waterloo hospital and the cuts in the services imposed by the Government, the area health authority, and the local authority, the Sefton Conservative council? They wrote to me suggesting alternative measures to the closure of the Waterloo hospital.
The Crosby constituency Liberals said:
Having consulted with various interested parties, we feel that such alternative proposals can be made so as to satisfy the demands of the Health Authority and so preserve this amenity".
meaning Waterloo hospital. The Liberals seem to support the cuts providing they can decide them.
The persons whom I represent are opposed to all Health Service cuts in the south Sefton area and want to see greater expenditure, not cuts, to provide a better and not a worse Health Service in Bootle, south Sefton and throughout Merseyside. I could continue at length, but I want the Minister to reply.
We are dealing with a matter of principle which divides the two main political parties. The Conservatives do not regard the Health Service as worth defending at all costs. We regard the Health Service as a major exemplification of what Socialism and our Labour party policies are all about. The Conservatives hate Socialism, and they hate Socialism that works more than that which does not. Because the Health Service works and is caring in action — it is Socialism in action — they are attacking the Service and many people are suffering including some who voted Conservative at the general election.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John. Patten): This has been an interesting night of debates, and the Adjournment debate has been equally interesting.
I begin by refuting utterly the comments of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) about my Government's attitude towards the National Health Service. If we had such an attitude, it would be a curious reflection of it for us to spend more rather than less in real terms next year. Next year will see the Government's attitude towards the NHS expressed.
The hon. Gentleman's comments reflect the excellent debate that took place a few weeks ago when, to my surprise, and certainly to the surprise of many hon. Members, the Adjournment debate lasted almost four hours instead of half an hour. That gave us the opportunity to have an in-depth look at health provision in Liverpool and Merseyside.
I shall refrain from discussing in great detail the points that we discussed at length on that occasion concerning health provision in Liverpool. Instead. I shall address my comments to the specific points that concern the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate his concern about what is happening in his constituency and in the Sefton district health authority. I wish to put into perspective some of the comments about the alleged savagery of the cuts. It is peculiar to hear talk of cuts when more money rather than less is being spent nationally.
The first point to bear in mind is that the resource allocations below regional level are the responsibility of the regional health authority. Money is distributed to it, and thereafter resource allocation is its concern. The Mersey regional health authority, under its excellent chairman, takes the view that when adjustments are made to the level of available resources they should be applied on an equal basis.
The RHA does not believe that any one district should be protected from the adjustments at the expense of other districts within the region. The South Sefton district is virtually at its RAWP target for the late 1980s. I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman that the RAWP process began in 1976 under the last Labour Administration. It is a mechanism by which resources can be progressively, gradually and slowly redistributed from over-provided and funded parts of Britain to under-provided and funded parts. We see that process in action within the Mersey regional health authority.
There will certainly be a decline in population in the area, which may lead to some interesting redistribution of parliamentary boundaries, but that is in the lap of the Boundary' Commission.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: When the Minister considers the redistribution of resources in the NHS, is due regard given to the levels of unemployment and the consequences of that on the health of people in the area?

Mr. Patten: We certainly take into account the issue mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and also other issues such as relative deprivation and the social standing of certain areas.
The hon. Member for Bootle rightly highlighted the suggestion that a major hospital in his constituency should close. He was referring to the Waterloo hospital. It would be premature of me to comment in any detail on the points that he raised, and I must confine myself to factual background comment. The suggestion that the hospital should close is properly subject to a consultation process which, as he knows only too well, has only just begun. The


hon. Gentleman's constituency Liberal party has already made some interesting suggestions. He obviously suffers from the irritations of the Liberals in his constituency as much as I do in mine.
The consultation period will not end until February 1984. If, at the end of that period, the community health council — which does good work in the hon. Gentleman's area—objects to the proposals, the matter will come to us for a final decision, but not until it has been fully considered by the RHA. Should it come to us, I shall bear in mind the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that acute in-patient facilities were withdrawn from the hospital in 1974 as a consequence of the commissioning of new facilities at Fazakerley. Over the years there have been a number of in-depth investigations on environmental grounds and also by firemen and engineers. These have shown that the property requires major capital investment to bring it up to standard. Since 1974 the health authority—the preexistent authority and the present authority—has used the hospital as a community hospital. It has provided a number of clinics, a minor injuries unit, a satellite unit for renal dialysis and support facilities, including an outpatient department. I pay tribute to the work of the staff.
I should say a word in passing about manpower changes in the area. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the south Sefton district is scheduled to lose 87 posts. So far, some 52 posts have already been suppressed and the district is confident that it will be able to reach the target of 87 without any impact at all on the level of patient care. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by that, especially as, historically, employment in the Health Service is higher than it has even been since the inception of the NHS.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the health authority has considered the future of Waterloo hospital on several occasions, on each of which it has drawn back from curtailing services there because of the strong community feeling in the area. It has been decided to close the hospital temporarily in advance of full consultation because the authority decided that it must live within the cash limits that are a statutory enjoinment on it. Successive Governments have always recognised that there may be circumstances, including financial pressures, which justify acting in that way, but before closure can be made permanent the full consultation to which I have referred must be undertaken and is now taking place.
The health authority has given close consideration to the future of services now provided at Waterloo. I am sure

that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the authority's plans for relocation of those services, so I shall not comment on them in detail today.
In addition to the closure of Waterloo hospital, which the authority estimates will result in savings of about £200,000 in a full year. the authority has agreed to a temporary reduction of 20 long-stay geriatric beds at Fazakerley hospital. That reduction is being linked with the future use of other wards at Fazakerley when the authority will receive 93 of its own patients currently in hospital in Liverpool. There will thus be a certain amount of transfer back as a result of the Liverpool health authority's long-term strategy proposals if and when they are considered and approved. South Sefton will certainly receive a regional adjustment from the Mersey regional health authority for accepting those patients and that important issue is still being considered.
The outlook for Waterloo hospital is not all doom and gloom, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The Mersey regional health authority's capital programme contains provision for a 20-place day unit for the elderly severely mentally infirm at a cost of more than £561,000 at present prices, to start in January 1986. That highly important development will add to and not detract from hospital provision in the area. Although a declining population is projected for the south Sefton district there will be a proportionate increase in the number of elderly people, some over 75 and many over 85. It is critically important to make adequate provision for that important client group of the National Health Service.
In conclusion, I can say little more because of the consultation process now taking place, but I repeat my utter refutation of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about the Government's attitude to the NHS. It would certainly be most peculiar to favour cutting the NHS while deploying a historically large amount of money in real terms on it and employing a historically large number of people in it.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman, and, through him, his constituents, and perhaps even the troublesome Liberals to whom he referred, that there is indeed a future for the Waterloo hospital. The development envisaged for it will represent a substantial advance within the context of a modern Health Service, providing for client groups such as the elderly, infirm and confused who have hitherto not had a fair deal from successive Governments. Within that framework of a modern Health Service the Waterloo hospital will continue to have a role.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Nine o'clock am.